Title: Leadership orientation and self-presentations
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098666/00001
 Material Information
Title: Leadership orientation and self-presentations a leader's impression management under stress
Physical Description: x, 108 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Caine, Bruce Theodore, 1944-
Publication Date: 1976
Copyright Date: 1976
Subject: Leadership   ( lcsh )
Associations, institutions, etc -- Management   ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Thesis: Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 102-107.
Statement of Responsibility: by Bruce T. Caine.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098666
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000180854
oclc - 03198860
notis - AAU7390


This item has the following downloads:

leadershiporient00cain ( PDF )

Full Text







The author expresses his thanks to all those who supported and

assisted in this project. To the members of his review committee, he

extends special thanks for their encouragement and patience. To the

members of the University of Florida Reserve OFficers Training Corps

and their cadre, he sends his wishes for continued success. But the

most sincere and heartfelt gratitude must be reserved for his wife,

Pam and his children, Scott and Alyssa, for without their support,

understanding and love this project would never have been completed.


LIST OF TALES. . . . . .
ABSTRACT. . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . .
A Role flaking Model of Leadership. . . .
Social Power and the Leadership Process. .
Leader Behavior--the Application of Social
Social Roles and Social Exchange . . .
Role Miaking . . . . . . . .
The Self-PresentaLional Process. . . .
Establishing Credibility . . . ..
Defining the Situation . . . . .



. . . . . 22

Interpretation of the Scales . . . . . .
Hypotheses Relating the Predictor Scales. . . .
Measures of Self-Presentation. . . . . . .
Analysis of the Leadership Situation . . . .
The Korten Stress Model . . . . . ..
The Life Cycle Theory. . . . . . . .
The Contingency Model . . . . . . ..
The Experimental Situations. . . . . . .
Hypotheses Concerning Situational Self-Presentation.
IV EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN. . . . . . . . ...
Method . . . . . . . . . . . .



Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Experimental Ovarview. . . . . . . ... 61
Procedure. . . . . . . . . . .. 62

V RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66

Predictor Scale Relationships. . . . . . .. 66

LPC/Self-Concept Relationship. . . . . . 66
LPC/Behavioral Survey Relationship . . . . 67
Self-Esteem/Behavior Survey Relationship . . . 69

Situational Evaluations . . . . . . .. 70

Verification of the Contingency Model Situational
Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . 70
Verification of the Situational Stress
Manipulation . . . . . . . . . 70
Prediction of Self-Presentation. . . . . ... 71
Contingency Model and Prediction of Self-
Presentation . . . . . . . . . 72
Evaluation of Leader Behavior. . . . . .. 75

VI DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Predictor Scale Relationships. . . . . . .. 80

The Prediction of Self-Presentation . . . ... 82
Self-Presentational Predictability and
Effectiveness Ratings. . . . . . . .. 83
Evaluation of the Research Design. . . . ... 84

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . 86

APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 89





REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 102

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . . . . . 108




MEAN RATINGS . . . . . . . . . . . 53

INTERACTION. . . . . . . . . . . .. 56

4 SELF-PRESENTATION SCORES . . . . . . . . . 74

PREDICTABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . 76



1 Johnson and Johnson's Behavior Survey Grid. . . . 68

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


Bruce T. Caine

August, 1976

Chairman: Dr. Marvin E. Shaw
Major Department: Psychology

Organizational leadership has been viewed both as a social role bounded

by norms and expectations, and as a dynamic social influence or social

exchange process. In both, the contingencies of the situation and the

personality of the leader are seen to interact in the production of

leadership behavior. The evaluation of that behavior depends on the degree

to which it satisfies the expectations of the organization and of the group

members and fosters goal achievement for both.

The organizationally appointed leader's objective is to achieve

maximum performance with a minimal use of formal sanctions. One method

the leader has to achieve this is through the establishment of a working

relationship with each subordinate. This process has been labeled "role-

making" and involves the exchange of information and expectations. In

the initial phase of "role-making" self-presentation or impression

management is seen as crucial. This "taking of a line" or establishing

of "face" is the individual's way of trying to control the definition of

the situation and the informal social exchange agreements that are formed.

For the appointed leader, self-presentation is seen as a means of estab-

lishing initial credibility and indicating one's suitability for the

leadership role so as to gain a high degree of voluntary compliance

from subordinates early in the interaction.

Three scales were considered as possible predictors of a leader's

self-presentation: Johnson and Johnson's Leadership Behavior Survey,

Fiedler's Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale, and Ziller's Self-Other

Orientation Scale. Relationships among these scales were evaluated and

their predictability for a structured self-presentation analyzed in a

laboratory study using decision making groups.

Forty-eight freshman ROTC cadets participated in 4-person groups

in which each served as the group leader for one of four tactical

situations. Situational stress was manipulated by emphasis on the task

responsibilities, the human relations responsibilities, or both of these

functions of appointed leaders. Each member prepared a structured self-

presentation by rating himself on the degree to which each of 33 personal

attributes was representative of him. This description was read to the

group by the member prior to his tenure as group leader. At the con-

clusion of the fourth situation, group members rated each other on

performance and the predictability of their self-presentation for their

behavior as leader.

Certain hypotheses concerning the relationships among the scales

were supported. Low LPC leaders were found to be higher in self-esteem,

as predicted. Against predictions, most leaders described themselves

as active on both dimensions of the Leadership Behavior Survey rather

than emphasizing the functional area corresponding to their secondary

motivation as inferred from their LPC score.

A strong main effect of LPC was found for the favorability of self-

presentations. Low LPC leaders described themselves more favorably. In

particular, low LPC leaders who received the experimental manipulation

emphasizing both dimensions of leadership described themselves most

favorably on the structured self-presentation. High LPC leaders in this

condition, in contrast, described themselves less favorably. These low

LPC leaders' self-presentations were seen as highly predictive of their

future behavior while these high LPC leaders were seen as performing

very differently than they said they would. Leaders in both these cells,

however, achieved high leadership performance ratings.

This investigation provides some evidence that the LPC scale may be

a useful predictor of an individual's self-presentation style and that

different styles may be equally effective in fostering attributions of

effectiveness for the individual in the leadership role.



People come to occupy the social role of leader in a variety of

ways. Some emerge from the group by virtue of activity or resource

to become "first among peers." Others conduct open campaigns for

recognized positions and attain the leader role through election by

the group to be led. Still others are altercast by the group into

the role of leader seemingly against their will and inclination. A

large percentage of those who occupy formal positions of authority,

however, are appointed not by the group members themselves but by

the larger organization or corporate hierarchy of which that group

is a part. The production foreman, the school principal, the police

sergeant, the corporate manager, and the military officer all occupy

positions of authority by virtue of organizational appointment. The

problem of predicting how effective an appointed individual will be in

the leader role has intrigued students of the leadership process for

centuries. Single factor leadership theories ranging from the "Great

Man" and trait hypotheses to situational force prescriptions have

failed to attain substantial predictive validity. Interactionist

theories, as exemplified by Fiedler's Contingency Model (1967) have

achieved greater success by considering the complex interactions

between the unique characteristics of the leader and the intricacies

of the situation.


Leadership is viewed as both a social role bounded by expectations

and as a dynamic social influence/social exchange process. The specific

role expectations and exchange agreements that come to operate within

a formal group are derived from the interaction of general social norms,

organizational presumptions and the characteristics of the group members.

Recently, Fiedler (1974) has proposed that organizations can improve

their chances of securing effective leadership by the manipulation of

certain situational variables and/or the appropriate matching of a pro-

spective leader to situations which favor that individual's leadership

"style." In his formulation, Fiedler (1974) proposes two contrasting

"styles" based on the construct of motivational hierarchy and utilizes

three situational factors to analyze the degree of uncertainty or stress

confronting the leader. Based on over one hundred empirical studies,

Fiedler concludes that "a leader's performance depends as much on the

situation assigned him (her) as on his or her own personality" (1974,

p. 70). The organization may most readily change the situation by

altering the structure of the group task and/or by adjusting the level

of position power authorized. Changes in the most significant of

Fiedler's three situational dimensions, however, depend primarily on

the leader, for it is he or she who must establish person to person

working relationships with subordinates and superiors.

It is the objective of this paper to present an investigation of

the processes of self-presentation and role-building as they relate

to the establishment of such operational relationships between the

appointed leader and others within a formal group. The ability to

establish one's credibility and suitability for the role of leader

is seen as crucial to the formation of working relationships that will

facilitate goal achievement and ascriptions of effectiveness. Based on

this assumption, the central questions then are (1) is there a way to

predict a leader's self-presentational emphasis, (2) do situational

as well as personal variables effect self-presentations, and (3) do

the leader's early efforts at defining his/her role affect later

evaluations of his/her performance on-the-job?

A Role Making Model of Leadership

Most classic and contemporary psychological theories of leadership

have concentrated on the precursors and results of leadership behavior.

Classic theories, based on the presumed traits of leaders and principles

of leadership performance, assumed that possession of the former and

knowledge of and adherence to the latter would foster acceptance of the

individual as "leader" and enhance his/her effectiveness. Having the
"correct" complex of traits coupled with somewhat flexible behavior

patterns (based on knowledge of "the principles") was viewed both as

the predictor of and criteria for judging suitability for leadership.

Situational theories of leadership and management, in contrast,

have concentrated on the environmental precursors and on-going social

forces. Conceptually, as the situational forces vary, required or

preferred leadership behaviors also vary. A number of models have

been proposed and tested to varying degrees which suggest the matching

of leadership behavior to the demands of such situational variables

as time constraints, communications system, imposed organizational

structure, task demands, group composition, and stress.

Numerous definitions of leadership have been proposed that suggest

leadership should be viewed as an on-going group process. Allport

(1924) proposed that leadership requires direct, face to face contact

between leader and followers as it is a process of "personal social

control." Nash (1929) advanced his belief that leadership "implies

influencing change" in the behavior of people, while Tead (1929)

defined it as the activity of influencing others to cooperate in

achieving some mutually desirable goal. For Schenk (1928) leadership

is the "management" of men and women by inspiration and persuasion

rather than by coercion or the threat of coercion. French and Raven

(1959) and others have defined leadership in terms of differential

power relationships operating among the members of a group.

Social Power and the Leadership Process

Bertrand Russell, writing in 1938 stated, "The fundamental concept

in social science is Power, in the same sense in which Energy is the

fundamental concept in physics" (cited in Clark, 1969, p. 511). Russell

proposes that the "laws" of social dynamics can be understood only in

terms of power and considered it the job of social sciences to discover

these laws. Clark (1969) defines "social power" as "the force or energy

required to bring about, to sustain, or to prevent social, political,

or economic change" (p. 515). To have meaning in a social context,

power must be demonstrable. Claims to power are not the same as power

itself. Being in the position of leader and having the authority to

determine the direction of group activities is a potential source of

power. It is not, however, actual power. Performing in the role of

decision maker is an exercise of power only when the decision is put

into action by group members.

The social phenomenon called leadership is the process of gaining

willing compliance with decisions and insuring the execution of

directions by others without resort to coercive force. Therefore, as

the central attribute of the leadership process, interpersonal influence

is social power in operation. As the primary concern of this paper is

the investigation of organizationally appointed rather than emergent

or elected leaders, the following definition of leadership will be


Leadership is "the process of influencing human behavior
so as to accomplish the goals prescribed by the
organizationally appointed leader."(Bons, 1976, p. 6)

Within an organization, the authority to direct and control the

behavior of others is derived from the normative and functional

structures of the organization and is exercised by selected members

who occupy those positions in the hierarchy responsible for the

achievement of organizational goals. Members comply with the direction

of those occupying positions of authority because they recognize the

right of the organization to influence their behavior on certain tasks

.and in certain situations. In exchange for this granted power, the

organization provides rewards or remuneration to its members. However,

as noted by Katz and Kahn (1966), the essence of effective organizational

leadership is the achievement of desired behavior beyond simple com-

pliance with "routine directives" or minimally acceptable performance.

Effective leaders are those who are able to exercise some forms of

social power beyond the position-dependent legitimate power acceded to

all who occupy that organizational position.

French and Raven (1959) proposed four bases of social power in

addition to legitimate power. Reward and coercive power are in large

measure dependent on the degree of legitimate power and distributable

resources provided to the leader by the organization for use as his/her

discretion. Personal resources also play a role but are seen as

instrumental in determining the degree of referent and expert power

attributed to the leader by followers. Identification with the leader

is the basis for referent power while acknowledgement of task relevant

skills and knowledge forms the foundation for the exercise of expert

power. Leadership, then, is the ability to acquire and to apply

appropriately the various forms of social power so as to attain the

prescribed goals of the group through coordinated action of the members.

Leader Behavior--the Application of Social Power

An incredible amount of research effort has been expended in quest

of the definitive list of leadership/management/supervisory behaviors.

Most present classifications of leadership behavior can be traced, at

least in part, to Halpin and Winer's (1952) report of Hemphill's 1950

Ohio State University study of aircraft commanders. These authors

suggested four factors: consideration, initiation of structure,

production emphasis, and sensitivity or social awareness.

Bowers and Seashore (1973) reviewed the research on leadership and

compared a large number of conceptualizations of leadership functions.

While they prefer use of four factors, the dual aspects of group

maintenance functions (consideration) and goal achievement functions

(task orientation) preferred by Cartwright and Zander (1968) and

Stogdill (1974) seem to have gained general acceptance. Fiedler (1971)

calls the identification of the two factors of initiation of structure

and consideration "one of the most important achievements of leadership

research" (p. 7). This may well be true, yet military theorists since

Sun Tzu, writing for his emperor at the end of the sixth century B.C.

(Griffith, 1963), have emphasized these two factors.

Present day military leadership theory can be summarized in the

concise statement from the Armed Forces Officer (DOD, 1960), "The

winning of battles is the product of the winning of men" (p. 70).

The mission, always of prime importance, can be accomplished most

effectively by gaining the willing compliance and support of those men

who must work together to accomplish it. Leadership, as "the winning

of men," is an influence process, one that is based on the building of

credibility, confidence, trust, and mutual respect between the leader

and the led. The "winning of battles" is essentially a management

process, concerned with the efficient and effective application of

resources, both human and material, to the accomplishment of a given

task. However, without the former, the latter process will suffer from

internal power struggles which will vie with task related challenges

for the attention and energies of the group or organization and its

members. The would-be leader is the military in particular, but also

in industry, business, and government is counseled that mission

accomplishment, whether that mission is victory in battle, high pro-

ductivity, maximum profits, or national survival, is paramount. This

goal is, according to the United States Army's Field Manual 22-100

Military Leadership, "fully compatible with a leadership approach that

includes reasonable consideration of the men being led" (1973, p. i).

Taking care of your subordinates, men and women, is a cardinal principle

of leadership; "It is a paramount and overriding responsibility of every

officer to take care of his men before caring for himself" (The Armed

Forces Officer, 1960, p. 30). The leader's dual responsibilities of

mission accomplishment and concern for subordinate's welfare are

intimately interwoven. And yet, the descriptions of leadership behavior

and the classification systems of that behavior that have come into

common use in the psychology and management literature have succeeded

in isolating these responsibilities and for the most part ignoring

their interrelationships.

Research with small problem solving groups conducted concurrently

with Hemphill's study resulted in the development of the Interaction

Process Analysis technique (Bales, 1950). From this research base,

Bales proposed that leaders may be classified on the basis of their

most frequent behaviors as "task specialists" or as "social specialists."

Suggesting that groups need both types of leadership, Bales acknowledged

that both types might be provided by the same person. While it may not

be reflected in reality, the military leader is expected to do just

that--perform as both task and socio-emotional leader for his unit.

This behavioral specialization is often referred to as role

differentiation and has been conceptually tied to the concepts of

social exchange, social power, and reciprocal social influence in

an effort to more fully describe the leadership process.

Social Roles and Social Exchange

Homans (1958) is generally recognized as having first conceived

of human interaction and communication in groups as an exchange process.

Each member is seen as having certain expectations for the interaction,

expectations both of process and of outcome. Many of these expectations

are often tied to the normative structure of the group and society at

large through the medium of social roles.

There are three different aspects of a social role. The perceived

role is that complex of behaviors viewed by the position holder or

"actor" as appropriate for one occupying that position. Other social

group members similarly have a perception of the appropriate behaviors

for a position occupant which may be termed the expected role. Thirdly,

the actual behavior of a position occupant comprises the enacted role,

which may be variably correspondent with the other two conceptualizations.

Role conformity is defined as a high degree of correspondence between

expected and enacted roles. In-role performances (enacted roles) are

judged both on their degree of correspondence and on the outcomes they


Playing a role well often means conforming to the expectations of

the group which defines the expected role components. Sarbin (1968)

views role expectations as a cognitive concept through which positions

in the social structure are defined in terms of actions and qualities

expected of the person who at any time occupies the position. Sarbin

describes it thus:

The conduct expected of the occupant of the position, the
exercise of rights and privileges, and the fulfillment of
duties and obligations, applies to the person who at any
time is assigned this role. (Sarbin, 1968, p. 498)

Sarbin (1968) proposes three judgmental questions concerning role

enactment. First, is the conduct (behavior/enacted role) appropriate

to the social position granted to or attained by the actor? That is,

does the performance fit the ecological setting? Secondly, is the

enactment proper? That is, does overt behavior meet normative demands

and standards (expected role) which serve as evaluation criteria for

the observer? And thirdly, is the enactement convincing? That is,

does the enactment lead the observer to declare unequivocally that

the incumbent is legitimately occupying the position? The answer to

each of these questions will determine in part the costs and rewards

incurred by the actor as a result of that behavioral sequence. This

is especially true if the behavior is an influence attempt made by an

individual in a leadership position.

As Hollander and Julian (1970) put it, "...the leader who fulfills

expectations and helps achieve group goals provides a rewarding resource

for others which is exchanged for status, esteem and greater influence"

(p. 35). This is the essence of the leader-follower exchange agreement

or "informal contract." In return for his/her "leader pay" (defined by

Jacobs, 1971, as higher degrees of status wisdom, esteem, competence,

etc.) the individual performing the leadership role is expected to facili-

tate the satisfaction of member needs and aspirations. Therefore, the

outcome of group activities is an important determinant of the final

social exchange ratio.

The personal determinants of role enactment are (1) past experience,

(2) physical and intellectual ability, (3) the number of roles and

positions simultaneously salient to the actor, (4) organismic involvement

(effort), and (5) preemptiveness (time and priorities). Cameron (1950)

proposed that the more roles in an individual's repertoire (i.e., past

experience) the better prepared this actor will be to meet the exi-

gencies of social life. A diverse repertoire would insure possession

of such assets as adaptability and flexibility, which are manifest in

the ability to reciprocate to novel input and to accommodate stress

from both sudden change and from long unremitting strain within the

social context. In this regard, Biddle and Thomas (1966) employ the

concept of "specialization" which is defined as the amount and variety

of particular differentiated behaviors engaged in by a person. The

individual possesses both a level of within-role specialization and a

broader level of role-summed/position-summed specialization. In the


social exchange of group interaction, role appropriate abilities, skills,

knowledge, techniques, physical traits, and past experience become

"currency" available to the individual.

In the special case of the position of leader, role enactment centers

around the exercise of influence. Bass (1961) has divided the process of

social influence into three stages. He labeled an individual's efforts

to alter or direct the behavior of others as "attempted" leadership.

In both informal groups and formal organizational settings, numerous

suggestions, proposals, and wishes are expressed. Of these attempted

leadership acts, only those that actually produce the suggested or

desired change in others can be classified as "successful" leadership.

"Effective" leadership exists in Bass' model only when the change in

behavior results in reinforcement or reward for the complying individuals.

A member's action or effort that leads the group to execute a course of

action that results in goal achievement is, therefore, an act of

effective leadership, regardless of whether this action was taken by

the formally recognized "leader" or a hierarchical subordinate. It must

be noted that Bass' formulation has been primarily applied to the concept

of emergent leadership in "leaderless groups." It suggests, however,

that judgments of the effectiveness of an individual occupying an

institutional position of leader (titular leader) will be made on the

degree to which his/her decisions, directions, and guidance result

first in compliance and then in rewarding outcomes for the organization

and its members.

The social exchange process involves the expectations that each

individual has for himself and for each of the other members of the

group. Argyle and Kendon (1967) propose that one of the major

determinants of these expectations and subsequently one's performance

in a situation is one's conception of the "kinds of others" he/she

is dealing with. If we perceive our fellow workers and/or subordinates

as self-motivated, enthusiastic, cooperative and competent our behavior

towards them will vary radically from that which we would manifest if

we saw them as unmotivated, antagonistic, and incompetent. In 1964,

Dr. Robert Ziller proposed that the extent to which the leader dif-

ferentiates among the members of his group is positively related to the

variance of the leader's performance ratings of these members as well

as the the "satisfaction and productivity" of the group members. He

cites a series of studies conducted by Fred Fiedler (1960) which

indicated that those leaders described as "psychologically distant"

were more effective in promoting the productivity of task groups than

are leaders with "psychologically closer interpersonal relations."

Fiedler assumed that his "similarity of opposites" and "least preferred

co-worker" scales were the measure of "psychological distance," a term

Ziller suggests is a misnomer for the concept being measured. Ziller

concludes that in reality, the leader is being asked to discriminate

between two persons. Apparently then, the leaders who were effective

in discrimination between "good" and "poor" workers in some general

sense were more effective in promoting the productivity of task groups.

He goes on to state:

...Fiedler's results suggest that leaders of highly
productive groups evaluated the members as individuals
rather than as non-differentiated parts of a greater
whole, the group; that is, members of the more
productive groups were individuated by their leaders. (p. 355)

Erving Goffman (1959) suggests another factor influencing the

social exchange bargain or informal contract arranged between members

of a task group. He states:

Regardless of the particular objective which the individual
has in mind and of his motive for having this objective, it
will be in his interest to control the conduct of the others,
especially their responsive treatment of him. This control
is achieved largely by influencing the definition of the
situation which the others come to formulate, and he can
influence this definition by expressing himself in such a
way to give them the kind of impression that will lead them
to act voluntarily in accordance with his own plan [emphasis
added].' (p. 3)

For the leader of a military, industrial, or governmental organi-

zation, this statement has special importance. Tasked with the res-

ponsibility of directing the group's activities and accountable for the

group's performance on its assigned tasks, the leader must ".control"

the behavior of others by gaining the maximum amount of "voluntary"

compliance. Such voluntary compliance will reduce the leader's costs

incurred through demands for critical observation and detailed super-

vision, threatened and applied sanctions, and promised and granted

incentives. The leader can control the definition of the situation in

large measure by influencing the expectations followers come to form

about his or her suitability to serve in the leadership position and by

prescribing the terms of the informal contract or exchange bargain that

must be negotiated between the leader and each subordinate. Graen (1975)

calls this process of defining the situation and establishing a working

consensus for the group "role making."

Role Making

Graen (1975) defines role making as a set of processes by which two

functionally interdependent individuals work through how each will behave

in certain situations (interlocking behavior) and agree upon the structural

characteristics of their relationship (constructing relationship norms).


This process occurs against the background of the society, the culture,

and the formal or informal organization to which these individuals


Graen and Cashman (1975) have proposed.that the functional rela-

tionship between a person in a leader position and one in a follower

position constitutes a special case of role making. The occupants of

these two hierarchical positions from a vertical dyad and their inter-

action constitutes a vertical dyad linkage which is circumscribed by

the development of both behavioral norms and relationship norms between

the leader and the individual group member.

Graen and Cashman (1975) summarize the role-making process between

a newly appointed leader and group member as follows:

The model which emerges from our role making studies of
managerial dyads within formal organizations is one of
team building within units. Leaders of managerial units,
when faced with the task of developing new reporting
relationships with most of those they are responsible
for leading, respond in manners which serve to differentiate
their units. With only some of their subordinate managers,
leaders attempt to develop special exchange relationships
which transcend the formal employment contract. All
subordinate managers so selected may or may not accept
such a special exchange relationship. But, those who do
consummate such an exchange, promise to develop into
members of the 'trusted' in-group of the leader. In
contrast, those who either are not given the opportunity
or who decline the opportunity of the special exchange
become members of the out-group of the leader. Thus, the
unit becomes differentiated over time into two distant
subgroups, an in-group and an out-group. (p. 17)

The first stages of role-making must include the exchange of

information between the members of the dyad. Graen calls this the

"Sampling Phase" which begins with the first encounter and the impressions

made by each member. Initial observations and assessments are matched

against expectations for physical appearance, bearing, speech patterns,

task relevant abilities, talents, interests and motivations. It is

during this Sampling Phase that the leader's self-presentational skill

will be particularly important.

The Self-Presentational Process

Well before Goffman (1959) proposed his theatrical analogy of

social behavior, Dexter (1950) wrote, "The most important instrument

with which the leader has to work is himself--his own personality and

the impression that he creates on other people" (p. 592). Anyone desiring

to assume leadership, he counsels, "will discover that his behavior,

gestures, mannerisms, styles of clothing, all may enter into his effec-

tiveness or ineffectiveness--and that in selling his ideas, he must also

be concerned with the impression he himself makes" (p. 593). Dexter

further proposes that "the innovator or leader must study, to achieve

maximum effectiveness, what role he ought to play and, within the limits

of possibility, adapt himself to that role, realizing always that

changing situations may call for a change in roles" (p. 593).

The above statements constitute a fair description of the concepts

and processes involved in social phenomena called self-presentation.

Behavior ranging from formal written self-description such as a resume

to the simplest mannerism presents our "public face" to the world

(Goffman, 1967). Argyle and Kendon (1967) suggest, "Generally speaking,

people present a somewhat idealized or at least edited version of

themselves for public inspection" (p. 82), and propose that the ability

to "create perceptions of and attitudes towards self on the part of

others present is a subtle social skill, though one that is usually

practiced quite unconsciously" -(p. 82).

Goffman (1959) calls this ability to "create perceptions"

impression management which he defines as the process by which people

select those personal attributes for presentation that will facilitate

the creating of a certain impression in hopes of improving their chances

for success in the situation. A consistent and well supported self-

presentation is what Argyle and Kendon (1967) would call a "skilled

performance." They define "performance" as a stream of action con-

tinuously under the control of sensory input, and a "skill" as an

organized, coordinated activity in relation to an object or situation

involving sensory, central nervous system, and motor methanisms. The

elements of a skilled self-presentational performance would include

self-descriptions supported by actual behavior; performance predictions

that could be met or exceeded; and situationally relevant abilities

offered to the group and then provided. Consistency of one's pre-

dictive self-presentation and one's actual behavior will foster

credibility as a communicator (Burgoon, 1974) and as a legitimate

source of influence.

If we wish to make a certain impression, we must carefully control

the appropriate aspects of our public behavior. Our public image will

determine in large measure how others will react to us and, therefore,

we take care to present a "face" that will facilitate social interaction

and/or the achievement of our personal goals for the ongoing interaction.

As noted by Dexter (1950) and frequently by Goffman (1959, 1967),

changing situations call for a change of roles and, therefore, of self-

presentation. The individual in an interaction creates specific

expectations in others through his/her self-presentation. The self-

presentation conveys information about how an individual sees him-/

herself and how he/she would .like to be seen by others. Since the

individual portrays each social role with a degree of uniqueness,

observation of that person's overt behavior is essential to determining

how that individual defines the situation and what position he/she

intends to occupy in the interaction. Goffman says it best:

Every person lives in a world of social encounters,
involving him in either face to face or mediated contact
with other participants. In each of these contacts, he
tends to act out...a line--that is, a pattern of verbal
and nonverbal acts by which he expresses his view of the
situation and through this his evaluation of the partici-
pants, especially himself. Regardless of whether a person
intends to take a line (make a self-presentation) he will
find that he has done so in effect. The other participants
will assume that he has more or less willfully taken a stand,
so that is he is to deal with their responses to him, he
must take into consideration the impressions they have
formed of him. (1955, p. 213)

Establishing Credibility

Numerous studies of persuasion processes including propaganda,

advertising, and attitude change using both direct person to person

and mass communications, have shown the source's credibility or

believability to be of central importance (see reviews by Kiesler,

Collins, & Miller, 1969; Burgoon, 1973).

Source credibility is a perceived phenomenon; it is "in the eye

of the beholder." McCroskey and his associates have suggested five

attributes or dimensions influencing the perception of source credi-

bility. These are competence, character, composure, sociability, and

extraversion (McCroskey, Jensen, & Todd, 1972). Conflict between

dimensions, however, reduces the overall credibility of the source.

Great expertise without trustworthiness (good character) may not

produce high credibility, while extroversion with composure, sociability,


and apparent trustworthiness may overcome a task competence deficiency

and permit influence to be exerted by the source.

Perceptions of credibility are tied to the source's self-presentation

and degree of self-disclosure. Goffman (1959) sees maintaining composure

as crucial to preventing "loss of face," while that class of behaviors

labeled "extroverted" are a means of gaining and holding a central

location (focal point) in the group and consequently the attention of

that audience. Informing others of task related skills and abilities

through self-description and actual performance provides them with

information upon which to make a competence estimate. Perceptions of

trustworthiness result when an individual fulfills or surpasses an

ability self-description or a previously stated intention to act.

Bandura suggests that the consequences for self and others of

behavior also influences the perception of source credibility. If we

observe a source or potential model threaten or promise a particular

consequence (for another individual) contingent upon a prescribed

behavior and then fail to follow through on the threat or promise, the

source's credibility drops. Inconsistencies in "follow through"

behavior by leaders and other holding reward/coercive power makes

their future behavior unpredictable and reduces their credibility.

As noted above, one of the variables involved in the perception

of communicator credibility is competence. In the case of the

appointed leader, the presentation of evidence concerning competence

for the position is of central importance, as referent and expert

power (French & Raven, 1959) are both related to demonstrated competence.

For example, Goldman and Fraas (1965) ran task-oriented groups with

four types of leaders: (1) those appointed by the experimenter for


ability on the task; (2) those artibrarily appointed; (3) those elected

by the group; and (4) no leader (leaderless groups). In this study,

groups worked best for the leader appointed for proven ability, that is,

the ones perceived by the group as having the ability or competence to

lead on the task. Supporting this is the fact that the second best

groups were led by elected leaders, who it can be assumed were seen as

reliable and effective.

Self-presentation therefore can be seen as an integral part of the

building of relationships within a formal group. Each member, but the

new leader in particular, presents his/her definition of the role he/

she is to play and the personal attributes they see as appropriate to

that performance. Subsequent evaluations of performance may well be

influenced by the degree of correspondence between the leader's initial

self-description and subsequent on-the-job behavior. This subsequent

behavior is usually referred to as the leader's "style."

Defining the Situation

The role building model presented assumes that the appointed leader

will make an analysis of the situation and attempt to alter certain

facets to increase his/her control. In particular, the leader's initial

self-presentation is seen as an attempt to generate certain expectations

that will foster attributions of competence, credibility and legitimacy.

Such favorable attributions should increase the leader's ability to

influence the behavior of his/her subordinates toward the accomplishment

of prescribed goals.

In addition to the expectations of subordinates, other situational

variables also have an impact on the leader's behavior. Korten (1962),

for example, proposes that variations in stress will alter the acceptability

of different styles of leadership. He contends that in high stress

situations there is pressure for a clarification of goals and of goal

paths (means to attain goals). He goes on to state that:

...the more compelling and/or the more clearly structured
the goal, the greater will be the desire to take a direct
approach to the attainment of the goal. Pleasant socializing
is replaced with more intense emphasis on achievement. (p. 225)

Such a "direct approach" to task achievement he labels authoritarian

leadership which he defines as centralized decision making. In less

stressful situations, or when a task is well in hand, Korten suggests

that groups prefer a more democratic or person-oriented rather than

task-oriented leader.

Korten's model, however, considers only one side of the leadership

effectiveness question. According to Fiedler (1974), certain types of

leaders will behave differently in a given situation. In describing

his Contingency Model, Fiedler states:

The theory holds that the effectiveness of the task group
or an organization depends on two main factors: the
personality of the leader and the degree to which the
situation gives the leader power, control and influence
over the situation or, conversely, the degree to which
the situation confronts the leader with uncertainty.
(p. 65)

Accurately estimating the uncertainty and perceiving the demands of the

situation is a challenge to even the most socially adroit. For the

newly appointed leader this challenge is particularly salient for at

no other time are the many variables effecting the leadership provess

less under the leader's control than in the early stages of his/her

association with a group. It is at this point that the interaction

between a leader's personality and the situation is particularly

evident. Not only immediate reactive behavior of others but future

effectiveness as well may depend on the leader's ability to rapidly

gain control of the situation and reduce the level of uncertainty for

him/herself and for others by establishing credibility and legitimacy.

A carefully considered self-presentation is seen as the first step in

defining the situation and building the parameters of one's role.

In summary, a role-making model of leadership has been presented

that incorporates the concepts of social power, social exchange, leadership

functions, and situational pressures. The initial phase of an encounter

between the appointed leader and the group is a period of testing. Both

the group environment and the other members of the group are investigated

and evaluated. Members attempts to clarify their roles and offer their

expectations for the leader, who in turn attempts to define the situation

in terms favorable to his/her "style" of leadership. The result is a

working consensus upon which the group builds its subsequent interactions.



For the formal organization, the selection and placement of

leaders and managers is a crucial problem. Fiedler (1974) contends

that leaders should be matched to the situation in which they must

function. This match may be achieved by altering the situation to

fit the leader; by altering the leader to fit the situation; or by

selecting leaders who by personality and motivation are suited to the

existing situation. This latter course of action requires the use of

some means of analyzing the leader and the situation. A number of

models have been devised and tested to varying degrees in an effort

to uncover a reasonable predictor of leadership performance and

effectiveness. However, none has directly addressed the leader's self-

presentational behavior. The capability to predict the "live" or

"face" a leader is likely to assume for him/herself in a given situation

would be a forward step in the interpretation and explanation of

differential leadership performance. If we could predict the most

likely self-presentation and judge its effectiveness in fostering

attributions of competence and credibility, then we might well be able

to help potential leaders increase their impression management skills.

Three scales were selected as potential predictors of self-

presentational emphasis--Johnson and Johnson's (1975) Leadership Behavior

Survey, Fiedler's (1967) Least Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) Scale, and

Ziller's (1973) Self-Other Orientation Scale. In addition to their

differences in format, the scales also differ in the object rated.

The Behavior Survey consists of 20 statements describing behavior in

group settings. The items are equally divided between task functions

and group maintenance functions. The respondent is instructed to rate

him/herself on each item so as to reflect how he/she usually behaves

in groups. A five point frequency scale (always to never) is used. A

total score for each of the functional groupings (task and maintenance)

is computed and these scores are then used as "coordinates" to permit

plotting of the individual's self-report on the "task-maintenance grid."

Johnson and Johnson assume this placement is a veridical indicator of

the individual's leadership style. A (1,1) person is inactive and non-

directive; a (1,10) person places high value on maintaining good inter-

personal relations within the group; a (10,1) person places maximum

emphasis on task accomplishment with minimum concern for group main-

tenance; a (5,5) person, sitting in the center of the grid, balances

task and maintenance needs of the group through compromise and yet

neglects the "creative integration" of these two needs; finally, the

(10,10) person is seen as the "ideal" leader--creative, democratic

and committed to both the task and his/her subordinates.

The LPC scale consists of 16 to 22 bipolar adjectives separated by

an eight-unit equal interval scale. Respondents are requested to think

of the individual with whom they have had the most difficult time working

on a cooperative task and then to describe this individual using the

scale items. Total scores are computed with subjects divided on the

basis of their score into high and low LPC categories or high, middle

and low LPC designations.


The Self-Other Orientation Scale consists of a set of topological

representations on which the respondent is asked to place letters

representing various combinations of persons including self, friends,

parents, etc. The scale is intended as a measure of self-concept and

includes items to assess self-esteem, self-centrality, social interest,

interpersonal power, social marginality (reflecting competing group

demands) and inclusion (identification with a group). Respondents are

scored on each item individually resulting in a composite self-concept


Interpretation of the Scales

Johnson and Johnson's (1975) Leadership Behavior Survey is an

updated form of Blake and Mouton's (1964) Managerial Grid Approach.

It was designed as a behavioral analysis system to facilitate the

teaching of diagnostic skills and behaviors to be used in improving

the effectiveness of a working group under respondent's leadership.

Johnson and Johnson (1975) define leadership as the "performance of acts

*that help the group reach its goals, maintain itself in good working

order, and adapt to changes in the environment, and these acts are

group functions" (p. 22). In support of their approach, Johnson and

Johnson (1975) state, "The functional approach to leadership assumes

that leadership is a learned set of skills that anyone with certain

minimal requirements can acquire," and they contend that an individual's

orientation to leadership can be analyzed and enhanced by training.

The Behavior Survey represents a class of self-descriptive scales

that may be easily manipulated by respondents (Campbell, Dunnette,

Lawler, & Weick, 1970). Its items are all positively stated and each

represents a behavior that is, by definition, desirable for the "ideal


leader." As such, responses'may well reflect an idealized rating rather

than the assumed veridical perception of the individuals' actual

behavior in groups.

In contrast to the Behavior Survey, the LPC scale is not readily

connected to an idealize role description. Whether a person's rating

of the least preferred co-worker is in fact a perception of a single

individual or of a class of people is not in question here. Fiedler

(1972, 1974) considers the LPC scale to be an indicator of a dimension

of an individual's personality. Specifically, Fiedler considers the

LPC score to be "an index of a goal or motivational hierarchy" (p. 11,

1971) with a high score indicative of a social relationship motivated

individual and a low score suggesting task achievement motivation. He

contends that for an individual this hierarchy remains relatively stable

with one aspect consistently predominating and cites test-retest

reliability for military leaders of .72 over an 8-month period (Bons,

1974) and .67 for faculty members over a 2-year period (Prothero, 1974).

Fiedler (1971) states that the high LPC person (an individual who

rates his least preferred co-worker high on the majority of the items)

"does indeed have as his basic goal the establishment and maintenance

of close interpersonal relations--he needs to be related and socially

connected to others" (p. 11). If, however, good relations exist in the

group, this primary goal is satisfied and the high LPC individual will

seek satisfaction of secondary goals which Fiedler claims "appear to be

the approval and admiration of others and the attainment of a position

of prominence" (1971, p. 11). The high LPC person will strive to attain

this recognition through concentration on the task-related aspects of

the situation.

On the other hand, Fiedler (1971) states that the low LPC person

(an individual more willing to criticize another, as indicated by ratings

on the negative side of the dimensions), "has as his major goal the

accomplishment of a task or assignment" (p. 11)...the low LPC person

appears to derive his principle reinforcement and self-esteem from task

accomplishment. However, when the task is under control, the low LPC

person pursues his secondary goal of good interpersonal relations with

his co-workers, believing good relations to be conducive to task


As is implicit in the above explanation, Fiedler does not consider

the LPC scale to be an independent predictor of leadership behavior. In

contrast to Johnson and Johnson's (1975) assumption of an "ideal leader,"

Fiedler (1974) states that "it is not accurate to speak of a 'good' or a

'poor' leader, rather, a leader may perform well in one type situation

but not in another" (p. 71). The behavior of a leader is, for Fiedler,

a product of the interaction of that individual's motivational system

and demands of the situation.

Ziller's (1973) Self-Other Orientation Scale is ideally suited to

an analysis of the self-concept as it relates to leadership behavior.

Like the LPC scale, it is not an obvious self-descriptive measure and

therefore less prone to conscious manipulation and social desirability

influences. Items included in the scale are assumed to tap many

dimensions of one's interpersonal orientation that might be related to

the role building process and to behavior in groups in general.

Epstein (1973) defines the self-concept as "a dynamic organization

that changes with experience" (p. 402) and as "a subsystem of internally

consistent hierarchically organized concepts contained within a broader

conceptual system" (Epstein,. 1973, p. 407). It is proposed that pro-

minent among these concpets are the social roles that the individual

has accepted as characteristic of himself and which act as anchoring points

for the individual in social interaction. Similarly, Ziller (1964) views

the self-concept as a product of a life-long socialization process which

reflects the constant conflict between the needs of one's social group

and one's own need satisfaction. For a person in a leadership position,

the competing demands of self and group are particularly pronounced.

Leadership success is judged primarily on the achievement of group goals,

as imposed by the organization and on the satisfaction of subordinates'

needs; not on the leader's own level of need satisfaction. The reported

self-concept is seen as a reflection of the degree to which one has been

able to cope with the competing demands in social life.

Hypotheses Relating the Predictor Scales

Hypothesis One An inverse relationship exists between LPC score

and those aspects of the self-concept that reflect a positive regard

for self and a sense of control over the environment. Specifically, it

is predicted that (1) high self-esteem, (2) majority identification, (3)

high interpersonal power, and (4) high social interest will be more

characteristic of low LPC persons than of high LPC persons. As a

corollary to Hypothesis One, a direct relationship is predicted between

LPC score and measures of marginality, self-centrality and inclusion.

Evidence in support of these predictions is largely tangential as

these constructs have not previously been directly compared to the best

knowledge of this writer. Research supporting the hypothesis as it

concerns each of the above constructs will be presented in turn.

Self-esteem. Wylie (1968) indicates that all recent personality

theories place importance on "self-referent constructs." The term

"self" is used to refer both to an "agent," "doer," or "mover" of

behavior, and as the object of the person's own knowledge and evaluations.

As a "mover" or motivational agent, however, the self-concept may also

reflect what Fiedler (1971) defined as the individual's motivational

hierarchy tapped by the LPC scale. The construct of such a motivational

hierarchy may best be defined as a manifestation of the individual's

past history of reinforcement (success, satisfaction, gratification)

in groups, (e.g., Epstein, 1973; Hilgard, 1949). It may be inferred

that an individual will emphasize those aspects of a situation that

have been rewarding in the past, or those he/she perceives as most likely

to result in future positive reinforcement. As has been noted, Fiedler's

(1971, 1974) motivational system dichotomy parallels the generally

accepted functional division of leadership behaviors into task and

maintenance activities. Fiedler infers from his many studies that those

scoring high on the LPC scale may be classified as "relationship motivated."

These individuals have as their "basic goal the establishment of close

interpersonal relations" (Fiedler, 1971, p. 11) and manifest a need to

feel socially connected to others. Fiedler (1974) states that this

basic goal is particularly apparent in uncertain and anxiety-provoking

situations. Under such conditions the high LPC person "will seek out others

and solicit their support" (p. 65). The high LPC person's secondary

motivation, which becomes apparent in more secure and relaxed conditions,

comes from a need for the esteem and admiration of others, especially

from immediate superiors.

In contrast to the high LPC person, the low LPC person is seen as

principally motivated by task achievement as a tangible demonstration

of his or her worth. In uncertain and anxiety-provoking situations,

the low LPC person concentrates on completing the task. In situations

where the task is reasonably under control, the low LPC person's secondary

goals reflect concern for subordinate's feelings and satisfactions. As

Fiedler (1974) phrases it, for the low LPC leader it is "business before

pleasure, but business with pleasure whenever possible" (p. 66).

Given the above conceptualization, the satisfaction of one's basic

goals or needs in an interpersonal setting should be supportive to one's

self-concept and maintain or enhance one's self-esteem. Threats to the

achievement of one's basic goal or need must be overcome if self-esteem

is to be maintained. For a leader whose primary motivation comes from

achieving good interpersonal relations, i.e., a high LPC person, the

foundations of his/her self-concept would be belief and confidence in

his/her social/human relations skills. For a leader whose primary

motivation is task achievement, i.e., the low LPC person, his/her

self-concept anchors should be in task-related skills proven by

experience to result in positive reinforcement, that is, task or

mission accomplishment.

Ziller (1973) states that persons with high self-esteem are less

dependent on external sources of reinforcement. High self-esteem is

related to the integration of the self-system and Ziller sees this

integration as providing the individual with a degree of insulation

from environmental pressures. In contrast, the low self-esteem person

does "not possess a well-developed conceptual buffer for evaluative

stimuli" (p. 4). Ziller (1973) proposes that "Low self-esteem is

associated with short term adaptation...whereas high self-esteem is

associated with long range adaptation" (p. 6).

Fiedler, Bons, and Hastings (1975) report on the results of a

number of studies which indicate (given an initially moderately

favorable situation) that the performance of low LPC leaders improve

with experience on the job. These authors report positive correlations

between performance and experience for task-motivated leaders but a

negative relationship for relationship-motivated leaders. They state:

This suggests that relationship-motivated leaders who
were moved more rapidly from job to job performed
better than did those who remained on the same job
longer. Total experience on the job, and in this
case, no doubt, in similar jobs, enhanced the
performance on the task-motivated leader. (p. 241).

It would appear therefore that low LPC leaders made their adaptations for

the long term whereas high LPC leaders reflect a short term adaptation

to the job environment.
As has been noted, both high and low LPC persons are seen as placing

high value on establishing good interpersonal relations. However, in

the case of the high LPC person, acceptance by others is predominant

and central to their feelings of competence. Fiedler (1972) reports

on a study by Bishop (1964) in which the reactions of high and low LPC

leaders to success and failure in interpersonal relations and assigned

tasks were measured. Three independent variables were scored from

self-reports: adjustment, operationalized as the individual's

satisfaction with the group and their reported anxiety and tension;

subjective interpersonal success ratings; and subjective task success

as measured by ratings of past and future group performance. Fiedler

states that:

Bishop's study showed that the adjustment of high LPC
persons increases as a function of experiencing inter-
personal success, while the adjustment of low LPC
persons increases as a function of experiencing
task success. (p. 398).

The high LPC leader's need to be socially connected to others may

be most clearly reflected in his/her reluctance to criticize even the

least preferred co-worker. Wylie suggests that an individual 's

evaluations of others are a positive function of one's own level of

self-evaluation. Rogers (1951) found in a clinical setting that people

with high self-regard tend to be relatively accepting of others. Dittes

(1959), however, argues from laboratory research that persons low in

self-esteem have a greater need for approval from others, will be more

threatened by disapproval, and thus show a strong tendency to report

liking people who accept them and dislike those who reject them.

Walster (1965) reported similar findings. These discrepant results

and interpretations were reviewed by Berscheid and Walster (1969).

These authors concluded the variations were the result of situational

differences. Experimenters, in an effort to exert control, make the

evaluations of others clear to their subjects. Clinicians, in contrast,

work in situations where their clients are not sure whether others

accept or reject them. This ambiguous interpersonal situation is

probably the norm in most "real life" situations where "control" is

exercised by all parties to some degree, and where our social norms

of courtesy, tact, and emotional control often conceal honest feelings.

Under such ambiguous conditions as exist when people first meet, people

with high self-esteem are more likely to assume that others like them

and such assumptions lead to reciprocation of liking. Persons low in

self-esteem will tend not to make such assumptions of liking and may

even expect to be disliked. Thus they may be defensive and distant

or they may work hard to "being liked."

The above analysis permits the inference that a person with low

self-esteem is more likely to be a high LPC person. Given Dittes'

(1959) interpretation of a low self-esteem person's need for approval

and Berscheid and Walster's (1969) belief that this same person will

not expect to be liked at the outset of an interaction, it is possible

to see how the leader with lower self-esteem might concentrate his/her

efforts on improving interpersonal relations as a first step in securing

his/her leadership position. In contrast, the low LPC person may well

be high in self-esteem, being confident in his/her abilities on both

the task and, when the opportunity arises, in interpersonal relations.

.The low LPC person is able to criticize others since he/she is secure

in work group situations and sees no threat to his/her own self-concept

from the act of criticizing another.

Majority identification. Ziller (1973a) sees majority and minority

identification as alternate rather than competing or mutually exclusive

coping mechanisms. He states "Identification with the majority is

presumed to be associated with a sense of control over the environment"

(p. 15) and proposes that "majority identification and self-esteem may

be directly associated" (p. 15). Identification with the minority may

reflect a degree of personal distinction or feeling of uniqueness.

Ziller (1973a) reports majority identification as positively related

to low social interest (r = 0.36). Despite their apparent similarity,

majority identification is related to low inclusion (r = 0.24).

Interpersonal power. As this item is presented, a high score

indicates a low sense of personal power vis a vis others in a social

context. Ziller (1973a) reports strong positive correlations.for

power with low social interest (r = 0.50), low inclusion (r = 0.42),

majority identification (r = .33) and low self-centrality (r = .37).

The low LPC leader who, as Fiedler (1967, 1972) reports, performs well

in highly unfavorable situations (i.e., poor leader-follower relations,

unstructured task and low position power) must draw on a personal sense

of power to obtain compliance from the group. In contrast, the high

LPC leader performs better in situations that provide a moderate degree

of favorability for the leader. Such situations, it may be seen,

provide a power base of some sort for the leader either in existing

good interpersonal relations or from a structured task and strong position

power (Fiedler's Octants IV and V of the contingency model). Given these

results, it is inferred that feeling of low personal power (high score

on the items) will be more representative of high LPC persons.

Social interest. Ziller (1973a) reports a low negative correlation

(r = .09) between low self-esteem and social interest. He describes

social interest as the tendency to include the self with others rather

than holding oneself apart from others. Bass, Fiedler and Kreuger

(1964) report that responses to the Bass Personality Orientation

Inventory (Bass, 1961) revealed that high LPC persons were more self-

oriented than low LPC persons. High LPC persons described themselves

as seeking self-enhancement, positions of prominence, and public

recognition for their achievements. This would appear to reflect a

need to be apart from and above rather than included in the group as

a whole.

Marginality. This construct is designed to measure feeling of

being a "marginal man," the person "who stands on the boundary between

two groups" (Ziller, 1973a, p. 18), and is unable or unwilling to fully

associate himself with either. Likert's (1967) concept of the linking

pin function of leaders is a positive manifestation of this boundary

position. The organizationally appointed leader, in particular, has

two competing loyalties. He must insure the achievement of directed

goals but must also respond to the needs of his subordinates. Fiedler

(1972) sees the low LPC leader as handling this role-conflict in a

reasonable manner as a result of his fostering of good interpersonal

relations as a support to task achievement. In contrast, the high LPC

leader finds the demands for task achievement and group maintenance to

be incompatible. It is proposed, therefore, that the marginality

responses will be more characteristic of high than of low LPC leaders.

Self-centrality. Ziller (1973a) defines this construct as "the

perception of the social environment largely from the point of view

of the perceiver" (p. 7). Again, the report Ly Bass, Fiedler and

Frueger (1964) of the self-orientation of the high LPC leader is cited

in support of the prediction of a direct relationship. Ziller (1973b)

reports that children who moved frequently between communities exhibited

greater self-centrality than did those who lived in the same community

throughout their life. These responses may be tangentially related to

the better performance of high LPC leaders who changed jobs frequently.

Frequent changes in envirnoment may require a self-orientation which

will permit a degree of evaluative consistency.

In support of the implied inverse relationship between self-

centrality and self-esteem in its above predictions, Ziller (1973b)

reports that individuals rated as sociometric isolates placed themselves

in the central position more frequently than did sociometric stars.

Inclusion. Ziller (1973a) considers his measure of inclusion to

tap the individual's perception of whether or not a relationship exists

between self and others. The person low in inclusion is seen as wishing

to avoid obligation and intimate social contact. While in the extreme

such a motivation would be detrimental to leadership, the task-motivated

leader may be less inclined to establish emotional ties between self

and followers, at least in the early stages of group activity. However,

Ziller (1973a) reports a strong positive correlation between inclusion

and social interest (r = 0.45) which has been predicted to be more

representative of the low LPC leader.

Hypothesis Two Situation free self-descriptions, while generally

favorable, will reflect an emphasis on that functional dimension of

leadership that corresponds to the individual's secondary motivations

as identified by the interpretation of LPC Scale scores.

On the basis of this hypothesis, it is predicted that (1) low

LPC leaders will score themselves as "always" or "frequently" performing

most of the behaviors described in the Leadership Behavior Survey,

thereby achieving a high total score on both dimensions of task and

interpersonal relations. However, low LPC leaders will emphasize the

latter over the former; (2) high LPC leaders will score themselves as

performing these behaviors less frequently but will score themselves

higher on the task dimension than on the interpersonal relations


Fiedler and Chemers (1974) propose that, even in laboratory situations,

leadership is a highly ego-involving activity. As a result, when a person

is asked to describe his or her past leadership behavior, the individual

is likely to render a reasonably favorable report, especially in situations

where his/her claims are not likely to be directly challenged. As pre-

sented, the Johnson and Johnson (1975) Leadership Behavior Survey is a

non-situationally-related self-report which Fiedler (1972) suggests is

likely to reflect idealized behavioral descriptions. Such descriptions,

Fiedler states, are often found to be inconsistent with actual behavior

observed under controlled conditions. These inconsistencies can be

resolved when the interaction between the leader's motivational system

and the situation is considered.

Fiedler (1972) states that on self-report measures low LPC persons

tend to describe themselves as concerned with developing or maintaining

good relations, while high LPC persons tend to describe themselves as

self-oriented, that is, concerned with attaining positions of promi-

nence..." (p. 392). Such self-descriptions appear to reflect how these

individuals behave in favorable situations, while experimental situations

may, in fact, be seen as unfavorable. Fiedler states:

Finally, we find a complex interaction between LPC and
situational favorableness in determining interpersonal
behavior. In favorable situations in which the leader
has a relatively high degree of influence and control
high LPC leaders behave in a task-relevant manner,
while low LPC persons are seer as considerate and
concerned with good interpersonal relations. The
opposite is the case in unfavorable situations. (p. 392).

Fiedler presents a table to summarize the relationships which is

reproduced as Table 1. In explaining Table 1, Fiedler (1972) proposes


An individual's self-description is more likely to
reflect how he sees himself in situations in which
he has relatively great control and influence, i.e.,
when he is secure, poised, and sure of himself, than
when he is insecure, anxious, and humbling. In
these secure situations, he is likely to seek
attainment of his secondary, as well as, his primary
goals and motives. (p. 394).

He points out that experimental conditions are designed to involve

unknown, uncontrolled (by the subject) elements that place the individual

under stress (as, of course, is the case in many non-experimental

leadership situations as well). Add to this situational stress the

evaluation apprehension present in the lab setting, and the situation

becomes relatively insecure for the participants. As a result, the

individual is likely to behave in a manner that will insure attainment

of his/her primary goals. That is, the high LPC person generally

concentrates on improving interpersonal relations while the low LPC

person concentrates on task accomplishment.

The prediction that low LPC leaders will be more likely to describe

themselves as highly active on both dimensions is based on the mutually

supporting nature of the low LPC person's primary and secondary moti-

vations. In highly favorable situations (i.e., Octant I of the

Contingency Model) low LPC leaders have been found to be most effective

(Fiedler, 1967, 1972). In such situations, the task is "under control

and the low LPC leader concentrates his efforts on maintaining group

cohesiveness and improving working relationships. Further support for

this prediction is provided by a study of combat engineer squads by




High LPC Concerned with

Low LPC Concerned with

*Note.--Presumes situation is

Description by Others

Favorable Situation Unfavorable Situation

Concerned with Concerned with

Concerned with Concentrates on

favorable to the leader.

Julian, Bishop, and Fiedler (1966). Results indicated that the high

LPC leader is at a disadvantage when forced by events to perform both

leadership roles as socio-emotional leader and as the initiator of

structure. In contrast, the low LPC leader was able to fulfill both

roles and perform both functions with relative ease. Fiedler (1972)

in reviewing this study summarized the relationship in the following


Thus, the high LPC leader, who attends to the task, does
so at the cost of poor relations with his group. The
low LPC leader can, however, be both task-oriented as
well as having good relations with his unit. (p. 399).

Two studies provide direct support for the predictions. Bass,

Fiedler and Kreuger (1964) report on one of the few self-report measures

to yield a reliable relationship with LPC, the Bass Personality Orien-

tation Inventory (Bass, 1961). They found, contrary to their pre-

dictions, that high LPC persons were more self-oriented than low LPC

persons, while low LPC persons showed a distinct interaction orien-

tation. High LPC persons described themselves as seeking self-

enhancement, positions of prominence, and public recognition of their

achievements. Good personal relations and social interaction were

identified most frequently by low LPC persons as their principle

objectives. Fiedler (1972) relates an unpublished study by S. M.

Nealey in 1968 in which college students were asked questions con-

cerning a list of various traits or personality adjectives. High LPC

students rated more task-relevant adjectives as important than did low

LPC students, while low LPC students rated the relationship relevant

items as more important. When asked to imagine themselves as the

foreman of a work group in serious difficulties, Nealey's high LPC

subjects predominantly said they would concentrate on the task, while

low LPC subjects reported they would concentrate on interpersonal

relations. These responses do not correspond with the observed behavior

of high and low LPC leaders in actual stressful situations. It appears

that in this case, imagining oneself in a difficult or stressful

situation was not sufficient to precipitate self-reports of intended

behavior that correspond to reality and to the individual's primary

goal motivation as measured by the LPC scale.

Hypothesis Three There is a direct relationship between the level

of self-esteem and the overall favorability of one's non-situational

self-description when these measurements are made at the same time.

However, recognizing the impact of aspirations, a leader who perceived the

ideal role performance for a leader,as primarily either task direction

or group maintenance, may also have high self-esteem. It is predicted

that (1) self-esteem will correlate positively with overall scores on

the Behavior Survey, and (2) that those persons strongly emphasizing

one dimension will be found to report high self-esteem.

William James (1950) proposed that self-esteem equals the ratio of

success over pretensions (or aspirations). Likewise, self-descriptions

are reflections of one's behavior in successful encounters in the past,

for as Heider (1958) suggests, people will attribute favorable char-

acteristics to themselves whenever the situation will allow. For

aspiring leaders, the items on the Behavior Survey constitute a series

of behaviors that may be valued differently as a result of past training

or experience. However, all are positively stated and appear to be

appropriate behavior for leaders.


Rosenberg (1968) proposes that a person's "global self-esteem is

not based solely on his assessment of his constituent qualities; it is

based on his self-assessment of qualities that count" (p. 339). Based

on the concept of psychological selectivity, Rosenberg proposes that a

person will come "to value those things at which he considers himself

good and to disvalue those qualities at which he considers himself

poor" (p. 340). Perceiving oneself to be an "ideal" leader (in Johnson

and Johnson, 1975, terms a 10, 10 leader) and therefore valuing such

role behavior should in the absence of conflicting evidence, be

supportive of high self-esteem.



To achieve a desired status or position within a group, an individual

must demonstrate certain aspects of self seen as appropriate to assumption

of that role by the group. In some cases, an ascribed status or bio-

logical characteristic, such as ethnic group or sex, is sufficient to

either foster acceptance or precipitate rejection. In other cases, an

achieved status or complex of past performance is required, such as an

academic degree or a number of years of experience. Argyle and Kendon

(1967) state that a considerable amount and variety of research has been

directed at specific social skills related to perceptions of competence.

Frequently such research has compared "good" and "bad" performers on

some objective set of outcome criteria, for example, high and low pro-

ductivity (Argyle, Gardner, & Cioffi, 1958). This research, however,

has not touched on the self-presentational processes employed by the

leaders of the groups evaluated. These authors propose that achievement

of the state of competence in professional and social skills involves the

successful attainment of some combination of group or task related goals.

Acknowledging that different social tasks require different skills, they

suggest some common ones, i.e., perceptual sensitivity, warmth, flexibility,

energy, and a large repertoire of social techniques that may be cross-

situational for any position of social prominence.


A number of theoretical frameworks have been reviewed in an effort

to establish a foundation for a role-building/self-presentational model

of leadership in which the aspiring leader's selective presentation of

his or her "credentials" is seen as the foundation upon which that leader

builds his or her efforts toward acceptance, cerdibility and authority

within the group. As has been suggested, self-presentations must be

fitted to the demands of the situation if they are to serve the leader's

ends. Based on his or her past history of success (as measured by the

predictor scales) and his or her perception of the situational demands

to include follower expectations, (as manipulated in the experimental

situation) it has been proposed that the leader will adjust his initial

self-presentation to foster perceptions of competence. This initial self-

description is seen as an integral part of the Sampling Phase of Graen and

Schiemann's (1976) role making process model. It is at this point that

the leader begins to establish the "working consensus" (Goffman, 1959)

between his perceptions of the leadership role and his follower's expec-

tations for one filling the role. As part of this sampling process, it

is assumed that the leader will attempt to lay the foundation for later

recognition of referent and expert power by selective claims of skills,

abilities and personal characteristic felt to be both appropriate to the

situation and fully supportable by later behavior. In natural groups,

the appointed leader's self-introduction to the members of his/her new

work group is one opportunity to make these selective claims.

Rosenberg (1968) reviews the construct of "psychological selectivity"

and its relation to the self-concept (particularly self-esteem) and social

behavior. He suggests that selectivity:

...is particularly free to operate under two conditions:
(1) where the situation is unstructured and ambiguous,
and (2) where the range of options is wide. These
conditions are particularly characteristic of self-
evaluations. (p. 339).

The initial phase of a person's tenure in a leadership position is

a period of self-evaluation and can be seen to reflect both of these

conditions. Therefore, it is likely that new leaders will strive to

maintain self-esteem and gain recognition through a carefully monitored

self-presentation. This assumption is supported by studies conducted

by Snyder (1974) who proposes that "Individuals differ in the extent to

which they monitor (observe and control) their expressive behavior and

self-presentation" (p. 536). His results indicate that individuals

scoring high on his "Self-Monitoring Scale" were seen by peers as more

self-controlled and better able to create the impressions they see as

situationally appropriate.

Measures of Self-Presentation

The self-presentational device employed in this study is a modifi-

cation of one devised by Schlenker (1975) and included in a "personal

information questionnaire." Schlenker explained the purpose of this

questionnaire to his subjects by emphasizing that a feeling of "groupness"

would develop more rapidly if the members exchanged personal information.

Subjects were led to believe that after completing the questionnaire in

private, they would sit around a circular table in the middle of the room

and read one another their responses. One of the pages of the questionnaire

contained the self-presentational measure. It consisted of 35 personal

attribute items, each of which was to be rated on a five point scale from

"completely representative" to "completely unrepresentative."

Schlenker considers his scale of 35 attributes to be a "behavioroid"

measure of self-presentation rather than merely a self-report form when

it is used in situations where subjects expect to be required to read

their self-evaluations to their group prior to beginning the task. As

such, he assumed it is a measure of how a person actually expects to act

in the upcoming situation rather than some idealized description of how

one would like to act in such a situation or how one would like people

to believe we will behave.

Because of the prominence of his/her position in the group, a leader's

self-presentation is constantly subject to the evaluations of both group

members and those outside the group but observing the group in action.

This being the case, a leader, provided an opportunity like Schlenker's

(1975) subjects to make a verbal self-presentation prior to the beginning

of the group task, is likely to exercise care in describing his personal

attributes to the group. Newly appointed, assigned, or elected leaders

are commonly provided this opportunity to make a self-introduction in

non-laboratory settings. Therefore, it is a logical extension of Schlenker's

design to provide subjects expecting to lead a problem solving group with

a structured self-presentational form and then provide them the opportunity

to actually present that self-description to the group they would sub-

sequently lead (an opportunity not provided to Schlenker's subjects). The

final form used in this study consists of 33 personal attribute items.

All are value-laden, culturally biased terms, selected from both Schlenker's

(1975) scale and listings of "leadership traits" compiled by Stogdill (1974).

Each item was rated on a five point scale of "representativeness."

This form, labeled "Information Exchange Worksheet" is a principle

dependent measure of this study. Its use is supported by the central

assumption that "first impressions" can and will be manipulated by those

who are aware of their impact on the behavior of others especially during

initial encounters. It is proposed that this structured self-presentation

is the experimental equivalent of an organizational leader's self-

introduction to the members of his/her new work group.

In describing the process of self-presentation/impression management,

Goffman (1955) uses the term "face" which he defines as "the positive

social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others

assume he/she has taken during a particular contact" (p. 214). It is the

totality of the behaviors displayed and the facts and fictions revealed

about him/herself by the actor through his verbal and nonverbal communications.

For Goffman (1955), to "have," "be in," or "maintain face," a person's line

must effectively present an image of him/her that is internally consistent.

That is, the image must be supported by judgments and evidence conveyed by

other participants and confirmed by evidence transmitted through the

impersonal agencies of the situation. In effect, maintaining face is the

result of effective, conforming role enactment. Therefore, in this study

(as in life) self-presentation will not simply be considered one's self-

description but is viewed as all of those verbal and nonverbal behaviors

one portrays in fulfilling a social role as perceived by others.

In this regard, a series of questions are included inthe post-

experimental evaluation form to measure (1) perceptions of behavioral

emphasis (task-oriented and relationship-oriented behaviors); (2) the

internal consistency of the individual's self-presentation as measured

by a question of the self-description's predictability for in-group

behavior; (3) and ratings of performance which are viewed as indicators

of the individual's credibility and acceptability for leadership. The

relationships among these various ratings made by peers and in some cases

made about oneself are also investigated.

The relationships between the predictor scales and the individual's

total self-presentation were also assessed. This includes comparisons of

each scale with the structured self-description and with perceived in-role

behavior ratings. These analyses in particular are directed at answering

the first major question of this study concerning the predictability of

self-presentational emphasis.

Analysis of the Leadership Situation

Prior to addressing the predictions made concerning the prediction and

assessment of self-presentations, the relationship of the situation to

leadership behavior must be reviewed.

Bogardus (1934) presents an interactionist view of leadership that has

only recently gained general acceptance as a result of the work of such

theorists as Fiedler and Hollander and Julian. Considering the situation,

Bogardus states:

Social situations are never static. They are ever changing;
the idea of process is implicit. Social situations call
now for one set of leadership qualities but tomorrow
perhaps for another set of traits. (p. 278).

Given the dynamic nature of the situation, Bogardus proposes:

The development of leadership depends on studying situations
and on acquiring skill in controlling them. In order to
'learn' leadership, a person analyzes situations and develops
appropriate techniques for controlling them. By anticipating
situations one person may become a leader while other persons
are 'running around in circles.' (p. 269).

As has been noted, Johnson and Johnson's (1975) prescription for the

"ideal" leader foregoes any consideration of the situational variability.

This conceptualization is challenged by Korten, Hershey and Blanchard

and, most prominently, Fiedler.

The Korten Stress Model

Korten (1962) presents a model based on the variables of situational

stress and need for goal structure. Simply stated, under conditions of

high stress there exists a demand for clear goals and a direct approach

to goal achievement. In such a situation, the group requires a leader

who can provide the needed clarity and who will facilitate goal-directed

activity. Korten refers to this type of leader as authoritarian, one who

through an orientation or the task will overcome internal disagreements

and control the group's behavior. Conversely, when the situation is free

of ambiguities and stress, group members prefer a higher degree of personal

control and involvement in decision making. In such an environment, the

leadership style Korten calls "democratic" or participativee" will be

preferred by the group. Korten concludes that by understanding the effects

of the situation on the group, dysfunctional pressures can be avoided or

effectively countered.

The Life Cycle Theory

Hershey and Blanchard (1969) propose that the most effective mix of

task and relationship behaviors depends in large measure on the level of

"maturity" of one's subordinates. They define maturity as (1) the capacity

to set high but attainable goals, (2) the willingness and ability to take

responsibility, and (3) a high degree of task related education and/or

experience. With motive subordinates, Hershey and Blanchard propose that

the effective leader will be the one who manifests a low frequency of both

task and relationship behavior toward subordinates. With immature followers,

Hershey and Blanchard's "Life Cycle Theory" suggests that the successful

leader must show a high frequency of task behaviors but minimize rela-

tionship behaviors. With "average maturity" subordinates, the leader

should behave in a high task/high relationship manner until members

achieve a reasonable degree of task competence. At this point to remain

optimally effective the leader should reduce the frequency of task

direction while maintaining a high level of group maintenance behavior.

The Contingency Model

Both of these models contribute to an understanding of the factors

influencing leader behavior. However, unlike Fiedler's Contingency

Model, neither considers the interaction of situational forces with

leader personality. As has been noted, the Contingency Model utilizes

a dimension of situational favorability for the leader composed of three

dichotomous variables: leader-member relations, task and structure,

and position power. Fiedler (1974) considers that this dimension reflects

the degree of control, power and influence over the situation potentially

available to the leader. A situation reflecting good leader-member

relations, a structured task, and strong position power for the leader is.

defined by Fiedler as low in stress (Octant I). A situation lacking all

of these qualities would be high in stress (Octant VIII) while those

characterized by a combination represent gradations of favorability

and/or stress.

Low LPC (task-motivated) leaders have been found to be most effective

in highly favorable (low stress) and highly unfavorable (high stress)

situations (Fiedler, 1967). Korten's (1962) prescriptions for leader

behavior match the reported performance of low LPC leaders in these two

types of situations. Under stress, the low LPC leader's primary motivation

of task achievement matches the needs and expectations of the group for

task direction and goal clarification. In non-stress situations, the

low LPC leader's secondary motivation for good interpersonal relations

becomes operational and again this matches group expectations.

Fiedler (1967, 1972) reports that high LPC leaders perform best in

moderately favorable/moderately stressful situations (Octants VI and V).

In Octant VI situations with favorable interpersonal relations secured,

the high LPC leader's primary motivations are satisfied, permitting a

concentration of task-related behaviors. The high LPC leader in such

cases may draw on referrent power derived from his/her relations with

subordinates to overcome a lack of position power. For the high LPC

leader, this type situation may be a low-stress/low anxiety one. Octant

V situations provide for a structured task and strong position power but

relatively poor interpersonal relations. In such a situation, the high

LPC leader's primary motives are threatened indicating a potential for

greater stress and anxiety. To this contingency, the effective high LPC

leader responds with an emphasis on interpersonal relations.

The Experimental Situations

Results of studies considering leadership performance in Octants III

and VII of the Contingency Model have not reflected the clear and con-

sistent types of relationship between LPC designation and effectiveness

that characterize the Octants reviewed above. These Octants, however,

are ideal for a study of organizationally appointed leaders since such

leaders generally have a recognized level of position power yet may often

find themselves faced with an unstructured task. These Octants differ

only on the variable of leader-member relations. Due to the lack of

consistent results from past studies, it was decided to attempt to increase

the stress in the experimental situation through a manipulation of the

instructions provided to the subjects. Variable emphasis on one or the

other or both of the dimensions of leadership was seen as a possible

source of additional stress. It was intended that the prescriptions of

the priority of mission accomplishment or of taking care of one's

subordinates would be perceived as a threat or a support to the individual's

primary motivational orientation. A combined "mission and men" pre-

scription reflecting the actual doctrinal expectations for a military

leader was also used.

Since subjects were to be drawn from freshmen ROTC classes, it was

decided to present each leader with a military tactics problem. The

tactical situations were selected from a group of 18 previously used with

junior and senior ROTC cadets in a study of responsibility attributions

(Caine, 1975) and were evaluated by the members of the ROTC staff and

other commissioned officers in residence at the University of Florida

prior to use. In many ways, these situations and the procedure for solving

them parallel a number of similar tasks analyzed by Shaw (1963). For

example, Shaw's tasks number 53, 56, and 71 all concern military related

problems, where analysis of a number of possible options was required.

Each of these tasks reflects a low scale value on the "decision varifi-

ability" dimension, high scores on both "goal path multiplicity" and

"solution multiplicity" dimensions, and a medium scale value on "goal

clarity" (a dimension considered by Shaw to show considerable variability).

This pattern of scale values on these dimensions fit Fiedler's (1963)

definition of an "unstructured task." IL was felt that the four platoon

tactical situations also fit this definition. To check this belief,

ratings were obtained from 10 officers using the definitions provided

by Shaw (1963) for each of the four tactical situations on the following

dimensions: difficulty, decision verifiability, goal path multiplicity,

intrinsic interest, solution multiplicity, and intellectual-manipulative

requirements. Ratings were on scales from one (low) to eight (high).

Mean ratings are presented in Table 2. In general, the situations do

appear to fit the "unstructured" category.

Strong position power (full decision authority) was built into the

experimental situation. Overall, subjects perceive it as such, as indicated

by their responses on a post-experimental manipulation check question. It

was assumed that at the outset leader-member relations would be essentially

neutral as subjects would be relative strangers. It was assumed that

subjects would strive for good relations. Therefore, post-exercise ratings

of interpersonal relations were taken to indicate the end-state rather

than the initial condition of group relations. Using these responses, it

was possible to determine the Contingency Model Octant that applied to

the experimental situation.

Hypotheses Concerning Situational Self-Presentation

Hypotehsis Four Responses on the Behavioral Survey will be predictive

of structured situational self-presentations and peer ratings of behavior

"on-the-job" only in low stress situations. Based on this, it is predicted

that in the low stress experimental conditions, (1) subjects who report

themselves as frequently performing in both leadership functional dimensions

of the Behavior Survey (high scores on both dimensions) will describe

themselves to others in highly favorable terms, and (2) will be perceived



Dimension* One Two Three Four

Difficulty 6.3 6.8 5.9 7.1

Decision Verifiability 2.4 3.1 2.2 2.9

Goal-Path Multiplicity 7.0 6.9 7.2 6.5

Intrinsic Interest 5.2 4.9 4.7 5.1

Solution Multiplicity 6.0 6.5 7.1 6.8

Intellectual Manipulation 4.9 5.7 5.3 6.1

*From Shaw, 1963.

as active on both dimensions by peers. Likewise, subjects that report

themselves as performing less frequently on one or both dimensions

(variable scores), will (3) describe themselves in less favorably and

be perceived as differentially active by peers.

If Fiedler's (1972) reasoning that responses to self-report scales

(such as the Behavioral Survey) represent idealized leadership behavior

is correct, then such measures will be meaningful predictors of overt

behavior only in situations favorable to the individual. The above

predictions are supported by evidence previously presented during

consideration of the predictor scales (see Chapter II). However, it

must be noted that the consistency of what might be considered a measure

of behavioral intentions (the Behavior Survey), with one's later behavior

in a group setting is supported by a study of a scale designed to measure

"intentions to achieve individual prominence" (Shaw, 1960). The scale is

composed of items with obvious meanings related to a desire for individual

prominence and high scorers were found to volunteer for the prominent

role as group recorder in an experimental situation more frequently than

low scorers. In this case, the obvious self-report was a valid predictor

of later behavior.

Hypothesis Five An individual's predictive self-presentation and

group behavior are the products of the interaction of one's motivational

hierarchy and the degree of situational stress. It is predicted that (1)

high LPC leader will emphasize interpersonal relations traits in high

stress situations and task competence traits in _DW stress situations;

(2) low LPC leaders will emphasize interpersonal realtions traits in low

stress situations and task competence traits in high stress situations.

For this study, high stress was presumed to result from instructional

emphasis on the functional dimension corresponding to the leader's

secondary motivation. As has been noted previously, it is assumed that

emphasis on both functional dimensions is seen as a favorable situation

for the low LPC leader and as unfavorable for the high LPC leader.

Therefore, it is predicted that in the "Both" experimental condition

high LPC leaders will emphasize interpersonal relations traits while

low LPC leaders will present a highly favorable and balanced self-

description. These predictions are summaried in Table 3.

As a correllary to Hypothesis Five, it is proposed that overall

favorability of self-presentations will differ as a result of the

personality situation interaction. It is predicted that low LPC subjects

in the "Both" condition will present themselves most favorably followed

by low LPC leaders receiving the interpersonal relations manipulation.

The high LPC leaders in the "Both" condition are expected to present

themselves least favorably.

These predictions are based onthe assumption that individuals assigned

to a leadership position will attempt to establish their credibility and

suitability for that position by selectively presenting those "credentials"

that will permit them to make a favorable "first impression" on others

and to control the definition of their role and the group situation in

general. In Goffman's (1955) terms, this self-description is the. first

indication of the "face" that a leader projects to the group. As "the

positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line

others assume he/she has taken during a particular contact" (Goffman, 1955,

p. 214), one's social "face" should reflect those characteristics of self



LPC Designation Emphasis Condition (Manipulation)

Task IPR Both

Degree of Low Stress High Stress Low Stress
tS s A uetm d


Emphasis Predicted




Degtres Asumed High Stress Low Stress High Stress


Self-Presentational IPR Task IPR
Emphasis Predicted

of which the individual sees as appropriate to the situation. Jones,

Gergen, and Jones (1963) found that a person's goal in an interaction

will affect the type of self-presentation he/she will make. If one's

goal is to be liked (for example by a subordinate), modesty may be the

best course of action, while if one's goal is to impress another, self-

enhancement, especially on skills or attributes unlikely to be challenged,

may be the course to select. Therefore, given an opportunity to present

a self-description to another at the outset of a face to face interaction,

the individual must decide what claims to make to build the most favorable

expectations on the part of the other. These claims must be made care-

fully. The individual must feel capable of meeting the expectations he/she

creates, or risk what Goffman (1955) calls "loss of face," or embarrassment

and loss of credibility.

Goffman (1959) describes this process in the following way:

The expressiveness of the individual (and therefore his
capacity to give impressions) appears to involve two
radically different kinds of sign activity: the
expression that he gives and the expression that he
lives off. The first involves verbal symbols or their
substitutes... .The second involves a wide range of
action that others can treat as symptomatic of the
actor, the expectation being that the action was
performed for reasons other than the information
conveyed in this way. (p. 2).

The impact of the situation on self-presentation can be seen in the results

of two recent studies. Schneider (1969) investigated the effects of

success and failure on self-presentation. Schneider's procedure centered

on a subject's interview with a clinical psychology graduate student. When

subjects expected evaluative feedback from the interviewer, those who had

experienced success were quite modest in their claims of personal attributes.

This was interpreted as an effort to preserve the positive evaluation

they had previously received. Subjects that failed and expected feed-

back presented themselves quite positively. This was seen as an effort

to regain some self-esteem lost as a result of their performance failure.

It seems likely that situations that appear to threaten the leader's

chances of success, a similar effect might be found.

Schlenker (1975) also utilized a success/failure manipulation to

analyze self-presentation. Subjects completed a task and then received

bogus feedback on that task leading to expectations of doing extremely

well or very poorly. A control group was given no information on which

to form a specific performance expectation. Half of the subjects were led

to believe that the quality of their future performance would be unknown

to the other group members. The other half of the subjects were led to

expect their performance to be public. Once these conditions were

established, participants were asked to complete a personal information

questionnaire containing the self-presentational measure.

Schlenker reports that both performance expectations and anonymity/

public manipulations were successful. A factor analysis of the self-

presentational data produced two factors. An analysis of variance revealed

a reliable anonymity by performance expectations interaction for Factor One,

competence. Subjects in the public condition presented themselves con-

sistently with their performance expectations, that is, when expecting

success they presented more positively than when expecting failure. There

was no difference by expectation for the anonymous condition with all self-

presentations fairly positive. The no feedback public condition only

differed from the failure public condition. Schlenker concludes: "A lack

of certainty about their upcoming performance coupled with hopes for

success probably explains the fairly positive self-presentations of the

no feedback-public condition subjects" (p. 10).

Analysis of Factor Two, interpersonal relations, did not produce a

significant anonymity by performance expectations interaction. Given

the conditions of Schlenker's study which eliminated all face to face

interaction during the task by the use of individual booths, public

condition subjects appear to have been less concerned with presenting

"accurate" views of their interpersonal skills. These attributes would

not be subject to refutation as a result of the isolation.

Hypothesis Six There is a direct relationship between the degree

to which one's self-presentation is seen as predictive of later in-role

performance and the evaluation of that performance. Specifically, it is

predicted that peer ratings of leadership performance will be positively

correlated with ratings of the predictability of structured self-


As a corollary to Hypothesis Six, it is proposed that a highly

favorable self-description, if seen as not highly predictable, will

produce strongly negative attributions of effectiveness. As has been

suggested by Goffman (1959) and Argyle and Kendon (1967), having once

established a particular "face," it is in the individual's best interest

to try to meet or exceed the expectations created. The degree of

correspondence (predictability) between one's initial self-presentation

and later behavior will have an impact on how that behavior is evaluated.

Attributions of effectiveness and contribution to the group may well be

lower than actually deserved if one fails to "come up to expectations."

Hypothesis Seven A weak but positive relationship exists between

self-esteem and the overall favorability of one's self-presentation. As

the focal aspect of the self concept, the level of self-esteem should

effect how one presents him/herself. However, the impact of the experi-

mental situation is seen as moderating any direct relationship .that may

exist between self-esteem and the structured self-presentation. Therefore,

while self-esteem may effect self-presentational favorability, the demands

of the situation must be met as well.

A study by Stires (1970) provides indirect support for this hypothesis.

Stires informed the members of certain experimental groups that they

differed in task related ability, while other groups were told that members

did not differ in ability. Individuals who previously expressed confidence

in their ability, attempted to gain leadership of the group through

modesty. Those who reported being uncertain about their ability attempted

to gain the respect of others through self-enhancement.





A total of 53 freshman ROTC cadets at the University of Florida

completed the three predictors scales. Of these, 48 volunteered

to participate in the small group decision making exercise. Cadets

were randomly assigned to groups with the limitation that no two

individuals from the same class or drill unit were permitted in a

group. Each group consisted of two low and two high LPC persons.

Participating cadets were released from a drill period to compensate

for participation.

Experimental Overview

Analysis of the relationships among the three predictor scales were

made independent of the experimental procedure. The LPC scale was

selected as the major experimental independent variable on the bases of

its demonstrated relationship to predictions of leadership effectiveness

when applied in the contingency model. The experimental manipulation

of situational stress was included in the instructions to subjects.

Three different descriptions of a leader's responsibilities were

prepared; one emphasizing the task-achievement function; one emphasizing

the group maintenance function; and one consisting of a balanced

presentation emphasizing both functional dimensions. These emphasis

conditions were designed to increase the stress in the experimental

situation for certain leaders identified by their LPC score. The

2 x 3 factorial design was used to test the interactional effect of

LPC and situational stress on self-presentation and leadership

performance. To test certain hypotheses, comparisons of the other

predictor scales (The Behavior Survey and the Self-Other Orientation

Scales) with results derived in the experimental situation were made.

Such comparisons, where possible, consider the total subject pool and/

or specific cells, appropriately identified.

Leadership of the group was rotated among the four members with each

serving as the "platoon leader" for one of the tactical problems presented.

It was felt that such a procedure would increase the intrinsic interest

in the exercise and maintain a high level of involvement by all partici-

pants at all phases. Subjects were required to make forced comparison

performance ratings of their three group peers following the completion

of the problem sequence.


Twelve groups were formed as indicated above and scheduled for a

90 minute period either during the late afternoon or early evening.

Each of three commissioned officers in uniform conducted four groups,

balanced for experimental condition. All sessions were held in the

same classroom in the ROTC Department building.

When the participants arrived, each was given a name tag, instructed

to be seated at one of four separate tables, and asked to remain silent.

After all four participants were seated, the experimenter introduced

himself and explained the purpose and procedures of the exercise.

Cadets were asked to read their copy of the instructions as the

experimenter read them aloud. The instructions began:

You will be participating in a group decision making
exercise involving platoon level tactical problems.
The group will act as if they were a platoon leader
and his three squad leaders. Four situations will be
presented with the group's leadership rotating so that
each of you will be the leader once. The leader will
have full decision authority in selecting the group's
solution to a problem. He may, however, use any method
he wishes to analyze the situation and arrive at that

The instructions included one of three emphasis manipulation

statements prepared with the intent of challenging the participants

with a concentration on one of the two basic leadership functional areas

or with both equally weighted. The text of the task emphasis statement

is representative:

The Army's leadership manual FM 22-100 states that:
'Our Army has been and must always be mission-oriented.
Thus, our ultimate objective-our primary leadership
goal-must continue to be mission accomplishment.' In
solving the situations to come, mission accomplishment-
that is, finding the best possible solution to the
problem, must be the leader's primary concern.

Following this, it was necessary to justify the making of structured

self-presentations by participants. Borrowing liberally from Schlenker

(in press), the following explanation was given:

In a project of this sort, it is very important that the
persons participating get the feeling that they are members
of a real group, and not simply individuals interacting with
strangers. We will be simulating the decision making structure
of a military unit. In an actual unit, you would know each
other's strengths and weaknesses, but here we have only a
short time to complete the exercise. Therefore, we must
facilitate the exchange of information about each other.
Doing this has been shown to foster a feeling of "groupness"
and we hope that will happen here as well. Your packet
includes a sheet entitled "Information Exchange Worksheet"
and I would like each-of you to read the instructions and

fill out every item on the sheet. Do this as honestly as
you can because when it comes your turn to be the platoon
leader,.you will read your responses to the others. These
items will give both a fairly complete picture of you and
provide a common ground for information exchange. You are
making out the sheets now and will be reading them so that
those who go later in the exercise will not be unduly
influenced by those leading first. Please don't feel you
have to be excessively modest. It is best to describe
yourself accurately.

The "Information Exchange Worksheet" contained 33 personal descriptive

terms. Items were designed to permit participating individuals to

rate themselves on a wide range of task and interpersonal "traits."

Subjects were instructed to rate how representative each attribute is

of them using a five point scale from highly representative (1) to

completely unrepresentative (5).

When all subjects had completed the worksheet, these were collected

and the group asked to move to a single circular table. Prior to taking

seats, subjects drew sequence numbers to determine the order of leader-

ship appointment. The first platoon leader was instructed to sit in

the position with a place marker bearing a second lieutenant's gold

bar insignia on it. The other group members each selected one of the

other places marked with a squad leader's sergeants stripes. The

platoon leader was given his self-presentation form which he was

instructed to read to the group. When this was completed, the experi-

menter presented a copy of the first tactical problem to each member

of the group and an answer sheet to the platoon leader. He retrieved

the platoon leader's worksheet and stated "You have five minutes to

reach a decision. You may select one of the three courses of action

provided with the problem or propose one of your own design. There

are no absolutely right or wrong answers. No extra time will be


allowed. I will notify you when one minute remains." The experimenter

then left the room.

At the end of the first five minutes, the situation forms and the

solution were collected. Group leadership was then rotated with the

new leader occupying the "leader's chair" (always placed so the leader

faced away from the windows) and other members changing seats also.

The new leader was given his worksheet to read and the process continued

as before. All four situations were completed in the same manner.

Following the fourth situation, subjects were asked to return to

the individual tables. No performance feedback was given at this time.

The post-exercise measures were issued. Part One consisted of peer

ratings, asking for comparative rankings of the other three members on

leadership, followership, overall contribution to the group, and the

degree their self-description matched their actual behavior during the

discussions. Part Two contained a series of items including ratings

of group interpersonal atmosphere, satisfaction with one's own performance

as a leader, feeling of personal responsibility and an open-ended state-

ment of the cadet's conceptualization of the "essence" of leadership.

This final question was intended as a manipulation check on the

emphasis feedback. All but the last item used a 15 point equal interval

scale with end points labeled.

When these measures had been completed, cadets were informed only

of the group's overall performance based on a quick review of solutions.

Cadets were asked not to discuss the procedure or the situations with

others. They were informed that individualized performance feedback on

all the scales and peer evaluations would be provided to each of them

in writing in the near future and that a detailed debriefing would be

conducted after completion of the project.



Predictor Scale Relationships

LPC/Self-Concept Relationship

The comparison of LPC scores with responses on the Self-Other

Orientation Scale produced some support for the Hypothesis One. Overall,

a low but reliable inverse relationship between LPC score and self-

esteem score was observed, r (46) = -.331, p <.025. This is interpreted

as some support for the prediction that high self-esteem would be more

characteristic of low LPC persons. Using a median split for self-esteem

scores, a 2 x 2 distribution matrix was formed with high/low LPC categories.

Assuming an equal distribution, cell frequencies were analyzed by a chi

square test, X2 (1) = 3.64, p <.06. The distribution pattern provides

support for the predicted inverse relationship, with high LPC/low self-

esteem and low LPC/high self-esteem cells predominating.

Predictions of an inverse relationship between LPC score and majority/

minority identificatio- scores (Majority Identification = high score on

items) were also confirmed, r (46) = -.246, p<.05. However, measures

of Social Interest and Personal Power were not found to be reliably related

to LPC scores, r (46) = -.061, N.S. and r (46) = .180, N.S.

No support was found for the corollary to Hypothesis One that sug-

gested a direct relationship between LPC score and measures of marginality,

self-centrality and inclusion. Correlations for these items with LPC were

.13, .06, and .03.

LPC/Behavioral Survey Relationship

Based on Hypothesis Two, it was predicted that those scoring low

on the LPC scale would be more likely to describe themselves as high

on both the task and interpersonal relations dimensions but emphasize

the interpersonal relations dimension while high LPC leaders would rate

themselves more moderately on both but emphasize the task dimension.

One-way analysis of variance comparing high and low LPC leaders on each

dimension separately did not indicate any reliable differences in the

responses, F (1,46) = 1.674, p<.203 for task and F (1,46) = .713, p< .403

for interpersonal relations. However, task dimension scores were found

to correlate reliably with LPC scores, r (46) = .304, p <.025. This is

interpreted as a tendency by high LPC leaders to see themselves as more

active on the task dimension as expected. The relationship between LPC

and the interpersonal relations scores was not significant, r (46) = .176,


The prediction that low LPC leaders would describe themselves as highly

active on both dimensions while high LPC leaders would rate themselves more

moderately received little support. Scores for almost all subjects were

high. Plotting the actual scores on the standard task-maintenance grid,

it was found that all but five subjects were firmly in the upper right

or high task/high maintenance quadrant. Using the approximate means for

all subjects on the two dimensions (36 and 36) a new grid center point

(or 5, 5 point) was superimposed on the data. This converted grid pro-

vides for a more meaningful examination of these data. High LPC leaders

were expected to describe themselves primarily as "compromise" (5,5) or

"total task" group leaders. On the converted grid (Figure 1), high LPC


10 _


0 5 10 Is 20 25 30 35


Note.--Triangles = High LPC leaders.

Circles = Low LPC leaders.

Figure 1. Johnson and Johnson's Behavior Survey Grid.

individuals did predominantly fall in the compromise area (n = 9) but

also had reasonable representation in the inactive and highly active
areas (5 and 6 subjects, respectively).

Low LPC leaders were expected to describe themselves as "ideal"

(highly active or 10,10) or as relationship oriented (1,10). In fact,
they frequented the balanced, highly active (10 and 8), with the high

relationship (1,10) quadrant represented by a single individual.
Assuming a uniform distribution, a chi square test performed on the

overall distribution was significant (X2 (1) = 11.324, p<.001), with

the balanced quadrants predominating. On the modified grid 22 subjects
saw themselves as highly active on both dimensions (12 low LPC and 10

high LPC) and 14 rating themselves as less active but still balanced

(7 high and 7 low LPC). A one-way analysis of variance comparing overall
ratings of high and low LPC leaders on the Behavior Survey was performed.

No reliable difference was found, F (1,46) = 1.360, N.S. It must be
concluded that the results provide only limited support for Hypothesis Two.

Self-Esteem/Behavior Survey Relationship

The prediction of a positive relationship between self-esteem and total
self-evaluation on the Behavior Survey was not supported, r (46) = -.051,
N.S. Likewise, neither dimension revealed a reliable relationship, r (46) =

-.062, N. S. for task and r (46) = -.21, N.S. for interpersonal relations.

The second prediction derived from Hypothesis Three was also not supported.

Of the 13 subjects whose dimension scores differed by 5 points or more
(range 48 to 17) 7 were scored as high self-esteem and 6 low self-esteem

by median split of all subjects. Self-esteem scores for this sub-group
ranged from 10 to 23 out of a possible score range of 4 to 24. It should

be noted that the overall mean self-esteem score was 18.29 for the

entire subject pool. This figure corresponds to a single measure mean

of 4.57 in a range of 1 to 6. This grand mean is somewhat higher than

the average self-esteem score of 3.733 reported by Ziller (1973a) for

a group of 298 teachers, supervisors, and principles. The subjects

in the present project appear to be higher in self-esteem as a group

than others previously tested.

Situational Evaluations

Verification of the Contingency Model Situational Dimensions

Analysis of the post-exercise questions concerning the favorability

of interpersonal relations and perceived leader power revealed nearly

universal ratings of favorable relations in groups and strong position

power in the role of platoon leader. As the task was designed to be

unstructured, this places the experimental situation in Octant III of

the Contingency Model. The mean rating on the question of quality of

the interpersonal relations in the group was 12.56 out of a possible

maximum of 15. Average rating of perceived position power and decision

authority was 11.85. In both cases the standard deviation was less

than 3 points.

Verification of the Situational Stress Manipulation

The impact of the experimental manipulation of various aspects of

the leader's responsibility or functions was checked by an open response

question. Subjects were asked to describe in a few words the "fundamental

principle of military leadership." The responses were evaluated by two

officers not otherwise connected with the project. Their review

indicated that a majority of subjects in each experimental condition

responded in accordance with the emphasis manipulation they received.

Some subjects in all conditions responded with comments on both

dimensions of leadership function. This type of response, however,

was most characteristic of the "Both" emphasis condition subjects.

It is concluded that the manipulation was a success at least to the

degree that subjects acknowledged the differences among experimental


Prediction of Self-Presentation

As a result of the lack of major differentiations among subjects

on the Behavior Survey, adequate assessment of the fourth hypothesis

cannot reasonably be made. Partial testing was completed using those

subjects whose total score on the Behavior Survey was 80 or above

with balanced dimensions (n = 12) and those whose dimension scores

differed by five points or more (n = 13). Not all cells in the

experimental design are represented in these subgroups, therefore,

any evaluation of structured self-presentations would be inconclusive.

However, peer ratings of behavior on the jbb can serve to indicate

how these claimants of high activity and disproportionate behavior

are perceived by others.

Overall means for peer ratings of task activities and interpersonal

relations (IPR) were 10.75 and 10.04, respectively. For the subgroup

of high balanced claimants (n = 12) these means were 10.69 for task

and 10.78 for IPR, neither of which differs reliably from the overall

means. Similarly, average scores for those in low stress (n = 9) and

high stress situations (n = 3) did not differ reliably. For the sub-

group of unbalanced claimants, mean peer ratings were 11.01 and 9.94

for task and IPR, respectively. Once again these do not differ reliably

from overall means. Of this group, seven claimed to be more task active

and six to be more IPR active. Peer ratings indicate 10 of the 13 as

emphasizing task behavior over IPR activity although differences in

most cases are not extreme. Similarly, only two of the highly active

balanced claimants were rated as performing equally on both dimensions.

In general, there is little support for Hypothesis Four.

Contingency Model and Prediction of Self-Presentation

In order to permit analysis of the emphasis placed on different

trait dimension by the individual under certain conditions, the self-

descriptive data from the Information Exchange Worksheet was subjected

to two series of factor analysis procedures using Biomedical and

Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences programs which include

orthogonal rotation subprograms. Against expectations, two clear

factors related to the task and interpersonal relations dimensions

could not be readily identified. A three factor model was tested but

again attributes semantically related to task behaviors were mixed with

those related to interpersonal relations. Given the limited number of

subjects and the relatively large number of items, factor analysis

may have been an inoperable procedure in this study. Therefore,

Hypothesis Five and the predictions of differential use of task and

interpersonal relations terms in self-presentations cannot be assessed

in the manner intended. Had each scale item been evaluated and placed

into one of two categories prior to the use of the scale, total

dimension socres of these predetermined combinations might have been used.

However, this was not done and a test of the Hypothesis must await

further research.

The corollary to Hypothesis Five, however, can be assessed by use

of total self-presentation scores. In effect, the 33 characteristics

were treated as equally weighted elements in the leader's description

of his social self. The scores of all semantically negative terms

were reversed prior to compiling total scores. As the rating scale

used a value of one (1) for highly representative and all items were

computed as positive traits, the lower the score the more representative,

positive, and favorable the self-presentation was. The range of the total

scores for the 33 characteristics was 42 to 115 of a possible range of

33 to 165.

No reliable interaction effect within the 2 x 3 matrix (LPC by

emphasis) was found for total self-presentation scores. As expected, a

reliable main effect of LPC classification was found, F (1,46) = 4.861,

p .05 (Table 4). As a group, low LPC leaders described themselves more

favorably than did high LPC leaders. No reliable main effect of the

emphasis manipulation was found, F (2,42) = 1.236, N.S.

Certain cell comparisons were made based on predictions that assumed

an interaction between LPC and situational challenge or stress. As

predicted, low LPC leaders in the "Both" condition (assumed to be low

stress and compatible with the leader's motivational hierarchy) did

present themselves most favorably while high LPC leaders in the same

condition presented themselves much less favorably, t (46) = 1.84,

p .05. However, the expected effect of a low stress situation on the

high LPC leader (interpersonal relations emphasis condition) did not

produce a relatively favorable self-presentation when compared to the

low LPC leaders receiving the same emphasis manipulation. It appears



LPC Designation Emphasis Condition (Manipulation)

Task IPR Both Row Means

LOW LPC 65.79 62.31 60.15 62.75

HIGH LPC 71.21 73.81 70.74 71.92

Note.--Lower scores indicate more favorable (representative) self-

presentation (All negative terms reversed prior to computing


that personal rather than situational determinants were predominant

in the production of self-presentations in this study.

Evaluation of Leader Behavior

No frequency counts of actual behavior in the group setting were

made in this study. The only eivdence for in-role behavioral emphasis

available for analysis are the subjective ratings by peers made as the

part of the post-experimental evaluation. No interaction or main effects

were found for ratings of either task-oriented behaviors or for inter-

personal relations behaviors. Therefore, as perceived by others, leaders

across all experimental conditions behaved in a similar manner.

Given that leaders were generally perceived as behaving similarly,

Hypothesis Six gains in significance. Univeriate analysis of variance

revealed a highly reliable interaction of LPC and emphasis manipulation

for rating of predictability of the self-presentation for later in-role

behavior, F (2,42) = 4.889, p<.Ol. Neither main effect was significant.

In the "Both" condition, low LPC leaders were seen as more accurately

presenting themselves than were high LPC leaders, t (46) = 2.652, p<.01.

In the task condition, high and low LPC leaders did not differ reliably

in their degree of predictability. However, in the IPR condition, high

and low LPC leaders did tend to differ, t (46) = 1.63, p< 10 (two-tailed

test) with high LPC subjects seen as marginally more predictable. Given

these results and those previously reported for differences in total

self-presentation scores, the "Both" condition emerges as the situation

of major interest (Table 5).

Certain within row comparisons are also of interest. Low LPC

leaders in the task condition were seen as less predictable than low


Predictability Ratings

LPC Designation Emphasis Condition (Manipulation)

Task IPR Both

LOW LPC 10.14 10.83 11.66

HIGH LPC 10.79 11.76 9.86

Leadership Ratings

LOW LPC 6.88 8.88 11.00

HIGH LPC 8.88 10.63 12.25

LPC leaders in the "Both" condition, t (46) = 1.93, p<.05. These

situations were both assumed to be low stress conditions for the low

LPC leader and while their self-presentations did not differ reliably,

the perception of their behavior in the role of group leader led others

to see them as differentially predictable. This difference may be

attributed to the expectations fostered among the group members by the

emphasis manipulation, but, except for the evidence provided by the

manipulation check question, no direct assessment of expectations was


"Both" condition high LPC leaders were seen as significantly less

predictive of their in-role behavior than were IPR condition high LPC

leaders, t (46) = 2.739, p <.01. High LPC leaders in the task and "Both"

conditions did not differ in their degree of predictability.

Predictions made based on Hypothesis Six were generally confirmed

but with an unexpected reversal. Based on the predictability scores,

leaders in the low LPC/"Both" condition and the high LPC/IPR condition

(rated as highly predictive) should have received the highest average

leadership ratings while the high LPC/"Both" condition leaders (rated

as the least predictable) should have received the lowest average lead-

ership ratings. In fact, raw scores indicate that the high LPC/"Both"

condition leaders received the highest average leadership rating, M =

12.25 (15 point scale) followed by the low LPC/"Both" condition leaders,

M = 11.0, and the high LPC/IPR condition leaders, M = 10.63. These

scores do not reliably differ from each other but do differ from the

average ratings of some of those leaders in other cells seen as

moderately predictable. Specifically, the low LPC/Task condition

leaders were rated lower (M = 6.88) than the low LPC/"Both" condition

leaders, t (46) = 2.68, p 4.01, as suggested by their differences in

predictability of self-presentation. High LPC/Task condition leaders

while not reliably more predictable than high LPC, were rated as less

effective than high LPC/"Both" condition leaders, t (46) = 2.621, p <.05

(two-tailed test).

Given the lack of differences reported for the behavior of leaders

as rated by peers and the radical differences in the degree of favorability

between the self-presentations of low LPC/"Both" condition leaders and

high LPC leaders in the IPR and "Both" conditions, the comparison of

predictability and effectiveness scores in these cells is particularly

informative. All these leaders were rated as highly effective compared to

peers in other conditions, however, their relative predictability varied.

High LPC/IPR condition leaders and low LPC/"Both" condition leaders were

seen as highly predictive but the high LPC/"Both" condition leaders were

seen as highly unpredictive of their in-role behavior. These results

support the conclusion that there may be at least two ways of establishing

initial credibility and fostering one's acceptability as a task group leader.

In summary, being either highly predictable in one's self-presentation or

highly unpredictable may foster higher evaluations of leadership effective-

ness. Since the high LPC leaders' self-presentations in the IPR and "Both"

conditions were equally modest, the differences in predictability must be

attributed to either actual behavior differences not reported by peers or

to different expectations generated by the emphasis condition manipulations.

Unfortunately, no data is available to resolve this question.

Some support was found for Hypothesis Seven. A comparison of

self-esteem scores and overall self-presentation scores revealed a

weak negative relationship, r (46) = -.223, p <.10. Since low self-

presentation scores were more favorable, the prediction of a weak but

positive relationship between self-esteem and self-presentation is

marginally supported.



Predictor Scale Relationships
The discovery of small but reliable correlations between the measures

of self-esteem and minority identification and LPC scores is important in

that it provides additional information on the construct measured by the

LPC scale and on its interpretation. High self-esteem and identification

with the minority seem to characterize low LPC persons. The very fact

that an individual scores low on the LPC scale is an indication that he

or she is willing to critically evaluate the work performance of others.

This may require a secure self-concept or at least a high level of self-

esteem and a sense of identification with a select group of high performers.

Some evidence in support of this interpretation comes from a study

by Fishbein, Landy and Hatch (1969). The authors asked individuals pre-

viously classified as high or low LPC's to describe, in their own words,

people with whom they had difficulty working on a common task. Frequency

counts of the adjectives used were obtained. The high LPC person tended

to see this least preferred co-worker as a competitor for prominence and

recognition (leadership) within the group, citing them as intelligent,

strong willed, self-motivated, assertive, bossy, and a "know-it-all."

The low LPC persons in this survey tended to see their least preferred

co-worker as unintelligent, incompetent, sloppy, unreliable, careless,

and unpleasant. To the low LPC person, such an individual represents a

threat to task efficiency and accomplishment, rather than a direct

threat to self. These results suggest that there are differences in

the selection, perception and evaluation of the object being considered

when an individual takes the LPC scale.

The high LPC person is, in effect, rating a competitor, a challenger

or rival forthe leader's prestige and esteem. This person then con-

stitutes a threat to the high LPC person's secondary motives. However,

viewing one's least preferred co-worker as a competitor may require the

leader to rate him/her favorably on many of the dimensions of the LPC

scale in order to maintain one's own self-concept. If, in addition, one

is lower in self-esteem such threats may be all the more salient to the

high LPC leader.

The low LPC leader is presumably rating a disliked individual seen as

an "opposite," an inferior, and a threat to the task at hand and therefore

to the group as a whole. Thus, the low LPC leader can, with minimal self-

concept constraint, rate the least preferred co-worker low on every dimension.

The low LPC leader's self-esteem is challenged by task failure, and dero-

gation of a source of possible task failure is possibly a defense mechanism

that helps maintain high self-esteem.

It is difficult to judge the merits of the Behavior Survey Scale for

predicting how a leader will attempt to establish his credibility and

suitability for leadership from this study. As indicated by the generally

high and balanced ratings, those who aspire to military leadership perceive

the competing and yet mutually supporting nature of the task and main-

tenance functions. This scale is probably best suited as a training device

rather than as a predictor of later behavior.

The Prediction of Self-Presentation

Two scales do appear to have some value as predictors of an individual's

self-presentation in a group setting. Self-esteem was found to be marginally

related to the favorability of one's self-presentation. Similarly, the main

effect of LPC score on the favorability of self-presentation supports the

use of this scale in studies of impression management. Given the experi-

mental design, the results have been presented primarily with respect to

LPC score. However, the negative correlation between LPC and self-esteem

scores suggests that the differences in favorability of self-presentation

might be attributed to the effects of self-esteem as well. Studies by

Adessa (1974), Schneider and Turkat (1975) and others suggest a positive

relationship between self-esteem and the favorability of one's self-

presentation, at least under certain conditions. For example, Schneider

and Turkat (1975) report that defensive high. self-esteem subjects presented

themselves more favorably after failure than after success. Subjects seen

as "genuine" high self-esteem individuals responded in a similar manner

but to a lesser degree. These results, however, can help explain the

relationships found in the present study only if one is willing to assume

that high LPC subjects, as a group, expected to succeed and low LPC subjects

expected to fail in the task-group situation. This writer is not willing

to make this assumption, since high rather than low self-esteem subjects

should logically expect to succeed. However, it is reasonable to infer

that the two measures a e tapping some common dimension of human variability

and, therefore, may well have a joint application in the prediction of

leadership performance.

Self-Presentational Predictability and Effectiveness Ratings

The most interesting finding of this study is the apparent curvilinear

relationship between the predictability of one's self-presentation for later

behavior and ratings of leadership effectiveness. For certain leaders, a

highly favorable self-presentation reflecting confidence, competence or

high expectations for oneself, when followed by behavior that matches the

claims one has made, will result in high marks in playing the role. In

contrast, a modest self-presentation that is far exceeded by actual behavior

may have set the stage for attributions of extra effort on the part of the

role occupant. Credibility does not suffer if one exceeds the expectations

aroused in those who must evaluate you. Low and high LPC leaders in the

"Both" condition appear to have used these two very different approaches

to the assumption of leadership.

Given certain conditions (i.e., emphasis on interpersonal relations)

some leaders may present themselves as modest or average performers, then

behave in a manner that is consistent with their claim or line. This

veridical self-presentation may be especially effective for the leader who

is primarily motivated by good interpersonal relations (the high LPC

leader). Modest claims and moderate behavior in the group may well be

effective in securing favorable interpersonal relations and subsequent

attributions of effectiveness, as it was for the high LPC leaders in the

IPR condition of this study. For the task-motivated leader (low LPC),

claims of high competence may be the first step in insuring control over

the group's task activities. In the ambiguous environment surrounding a

newly appointed leader, self-presentations may be directed towards the

securing of one's primary goals. Further study is needed to confirm these


Evaluation of the Research Design

The situational self-presentation device, the Information Exchange

Worksheet, was inadequate for its purpose. An insufficient number of

task-specific characteristics were included. Words that should logically

have been incorporated include: decisive, enthusiastic, objective or

rational, directive, task oriented (also people oriented for contrast),

high achiever, and skillful. Even with such items, a clear differentiation

between task and interpersonal relations dimensions may be difficult. In

all probability, an abbreviated form of the Behavior Survey Scale with its

clear descriptions or an open-ended written self-description would have

been more effective both in differentiating among subjects and permitting

later analysis. In addition, some form of behavioral frequency counts

should probably have been taken rather than relying solely on subjective

peer ratings of behavioral emphasis on-the-job. Bales (1950) Interaction

Process Analysis Technique would be preferable.

The actual group environment may have contained forces and pressures

that significantly moderated the effect of the emphasis manipulation on

in-group behavior. For these cadets, the lack of experience with military

tactics and doctrine seem to have fostered a cooperative and friendly

atmosphere in these peer groups such as is found only in the most cohesive

of naturally occurring military groups. No member by formal training or

rank had a legitimate claim to expertise nor were status differences

apparent. No member posed a threat to another based on rank or experience.

As a result, all members were potential sources of mutual support and

opinion that could be accepted openly. Reciprocation may well have been

the most powerful but implicit norm of these groups.

The rotation of leadership may have created different challenges

to the establishment of credibility for the first leader as compared

to those that followed. The first leader was forced to operate in an

environment devoid of norms. His approach may well have become the

criterion against which subsequent leaders were evaluated. By the end

of the first five minute period, the group had established some opera-

tional norms that those to follow in the leadership role may have felt

compelled to recognize. Having observed the first leader and the group's

reaction to him subsequent leaders could make modifications in their

own behavior.

In this regard, an analysis of those "first to lead" was made.
Purely by chance (since cadets picked their own sequence numbers), six

high and six low LPC leaders led first, two in each cell of the experimental

design. Peer leadership ratings, followership ratings, and ratings of the

predictability of self-presentation were compared. Mean predictability

ratings did not differ (M = 10.28 and M = 10.78 for low and high,

respectively). Followership ratings tended to differ (M = 10.15 and M =

11.47), t (22) = 1.33, p .10 with high LPC cadets rated more favorably.

Leadership ratings, however, differed radically. Compared to a grand

mean for all subjects of 9.75, low LPC "first leaders" received an average

rating of 9.0; high LPC first leaders were rated a surprising 11.63!

Needless to say, these means differ reliably, t (22) = 2.18, p<.05

(two-tailed test). It appears that being first to lead was detrimental

to low LPC leaders but beneficial to high LPC leaders! It may well be

that the high LPC leader's interpersonal relations motivation and modest

self-presentation were more suited to the early group environment than

the low LPC leader's task orientation and firm claims to proficiency.

The short time period allowed for each problem coupled with other

situational constraints may have severely limited the opportunities for

interpersonal relations activities not connected directly with accomp-

lishing the task (i.e., such as prevently arguments or other disruptive

actions). A better evaluation of the impact of the self-presentational

form read to the group by each leader may have been gained if a period

of open discussion had been provided (for example, a break between the

second and third sessions) so that subjects could interact in an

environment not constrained by the task demands.

Finally, it must be concluded that given the very real demands of

the decision making situation in which each leader found himself, the

situational stress manipulation may have been poorly designed for the

task it was intended to perform. The major results of this study can

be derived from the "Both" condition for it is the natural and ever-

present one. Rarely can the leader escape the competing demands of the

mission and those that must accomplish it. The results in this "natural"

condition indicate that equally successful leaders can approach the

problem of establishing credibility in different ways.

In summary, the results provide some support for the predicted

inverse relationship between LPC scores and self-esteem scores as

measured in this study but little support for the other hypothesized

relationships between the predictor scales. Hypotehsis Four could not

be adequately tested but the generally favorable responses on the

Leadership Behavior Survey may indicate that this group of aspiring

military leaders recognizes the role ideal represented by Johnson and

Johnson's 10,10 leader. Only the corollary to Hypothesis Five could be

tested. Low LPC leaders presented themselves more favorably overall.

In the "Both" condition, differing self-presentations were seen as highly

predictive or high non-predictive of in-role behavior by low and high

LPC leaders, respectively. However, these leaders were rated equally

effective by their peers. The relationship between self-esteem and

self-presentation found in this study may confound the LPC/self-

presentation relationship, but this potential three-way interaction

requires more study.

This research project was conducted to analyze the self-presentation/

impression management activities of individuals in the initial stages of

role-making. Three questions were asked at the outset: (1) Is there a

way to predict a leader's self-presentational emphasis? The answer to

this must be a qualified yes. The LPC scale does appear to be a potential

predictor although additional research is needed. (2) Do situational as

well as personal variables effect self-presentation? Again, the answer

must be a qualified yes. Self-esteem and one's motivational hierarchy

do appear to be significant personal variables, while situational stress

also appears to have an effect on self-presentation as part of a causal

interaction. (3) Do the leader's early efforts at defining his/her role

effect later evaluations of performance on-the-job? Once again, a tentative

yes is appropriate. Self-presentations that were either solidly confirmed

by later behavior and those radically at odds with in-role behavior, appear

to be related to evaluations of effectiveness. However, the degree of

causality in this relationship cannot be assessed from this research.

Further research into the role making process, and the influence

of skillful impression management on the assumption of leadership, will

be of value not only to the student of the leadership process, but also

to the practitioner of leadership in formal organizations.





When you are a member of a group, what is your leadership behavior
like? In what ways do you try to influence other group members toward
accomplishing the group's goals? The purpose of the survey below is to
get a description of your behavior in groups. Circle the letter to the
left that most appropriately describes your likely behavior--(A) always,
(F) frequently, (0) occasionally, (S) seldom, or (N) never--in connection
with the given statement. Each of the items below describes aspects of
leadership behavior; respond to each one according to the way in which
you would be most likely to act if you were part of a problem-solving

When I am a member of a problem-solving group....
A:F:O:S:N 1. I offer facts, give my opinions and ideas, provide
suggestions and relevant information to help the
group discussion.

A:F:O:S:N 2. I warmly encourage all members of the group to parti-
cipate, giving them recognition for their contributions,
demonstrating receptivity and openness to their ideas,
and generally being friendly and responsive to them.

A:F:O:S:N 3. I ask for facts, information, opinions, ideas, and
feelings from other group members to help the group

A:F:O:S:N 4. I try to persuade members to analyze constructively their
differences in opinions and ideas, searching for common
elements in conflicting or opposing ideas or proposals,
trying to reconcile disagreements.

A:F:O:S:N 5. I propose goals and tasks in order to start action
within the group.

A:F:O:S:N 6. I try to relieve group tension and increase the enjoyment
of group members by joking, suggesting breaks, and pro-
posing fun approaches to group work.

A:F:O:S:N 7. I give direction to the group by developing plans on how
to proceed with group work and by focusing members'
attention on the tasks to be done.

A:F:O:S:N 8. I help communication among group members by showing good
communication skills and by making sure that what each
member says is understood by all.

A:F:O:S:N 9. I pull together related ideas or suggestions made by
group members and restate and summarize the major
points discussed by the group.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs