This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]On: 11 November 2014, At: 17:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rere20

LEADERSHIP IN RELATION TO GROUPACHIEVEMENTA. G. Davey aa Department of Sociology , University of YorkPublished online: 09 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: A. G. Davey (1969) LEADERSHIP IN RELATION TO GROUP ACHIEVEMENT,Educational Research, 11:3, 185-192

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013188690110303

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

LEADERSHIP IN RELATION TO GROUP ACHIEVEMENT

A. G. DAVEY Department of Sociology, University of York

IF leadership is a process of influencing otherpeople to work co-operatively together then aknowledge of the effectiveness of different stylesof leadership is a necessary part of the teachers'professional equipment. For educationalists themost influential work on leadership has undoubt-edly been that of Kurt Lewin and his associatespublished in the late thirties and early forties(Lippitt, 1939; Lewin, Lippitt and White, 1939;Lippitt, White and Lewin, 1943). In theseexperiments four similar boys' clubs weresubjected to three styles of adult control:authoritarian, democratic and laissez-faire (inwhich there was an absence of leadership andauthority). The democratic regime produced thegreatest satisfaction with the club's activities.The boys became identified with the success ofthe group, made helpful suggestions for grouppolicy, praised each other's efforts and workedalmost as energetically when the leader wasabsent as when he was in the room.

Despite the fact that subsequent inquiries havetended to replace the emotive terms 'democratic'and 'authoritarian' by 'pupil-centred', 'teacher-centred', 'dominative-integrative', 'directive-non-directive' etc. the compulsion to see classroomleadership in terms of the ancient antithesis ofthe stick and the carrot remains. Moreover, theoriginal studies are still reported, somewhatuncritically, in numerous introductory texts (see,for example, Oeser, 1960; Ottaway, 1962 andStones, 1966).

This is unfortunate since the early experimentswere not particularly good ones. The Lewiniandesign does not allow for the possibility thatleadership style might profitably be varied tomeet the demands of different situations and thedistinction between teaching style and teachingmethod is blurred. The authoritarian not onlydiffered from the democrat in that he placed more

emphasis on getting things done than on hisrelationship with the boys, but he also presentedthe task quite differently. Whereas the democraticgroup chose the task themselves and had thestages to completion sketched out in advance, theauthoritarian group had their task thrust uponthem and its manner of execution dictated step bystep. Since many of the children did not knowwhat they were making, it seems hardly sur-prising that they failed to persist with their workwhen the leader was absent. Finally, there is theawkward evidence contained in the statisticalresults that production was higher and aggressivebehaviour lower under the authoritarian leader.This is buried in the discussion beneath theweight of emphasis which the authors place onthe relatively intangible advantages of demo-cratic control.

Although Lewin's results may accord with ourideological preconceptions, subsequent inquirieshave failed to demonstrate any consistentrelationship between democratic leadership andgroup productivity or morale.

Gibb (1954) in his excellent review of leader-ship studies suggests that under certain conditionsthe authoritarian style might have favourableresults and Brookover (1943), Adams (1954)and Shaw (1955) all obtained a better perform-ance from groups working under authoritarianleadership. Anderson (1963) reviewed thirty-twostudies of, teacher-centred and learner-centredgroups and failed to find any evidence 'that eitherauthoritarian or democratic leadership wasconsistently associated with higher productivity'.Eleven of the studies reviewed reported greaterlearning for the learner-centred groups, thirteenshowed no difference and eight had found teacher-centred methods to be superior.

Anderson points to a number of factors whichhave contributed to this confusing state of

185

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

7:25

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

affairs such as inadequate research designs, alack of precision in the definition of terms andthe casual manner in which morale and produc- •tivity have sometimes been measured. In onecase, for example, the assessment of moraleconsisted of the observer's estimation that 'thechildren seemed to be enjoying themselves'. Hefurther complains that many investigators in thefield of classroom leadership display a surprisinglack of familiarity with leadership researchoutside that of Lewin and his associates.

'Study after study had been conducted withbasically the same conception and execution andin apparent isolation from other research. Theresults of twenty years of investigation remainembarrassingly non-cumulative'.

It would seem that in order to understand howteaching style is related to achievement, newavenues must be explored. The purpose of thispaper is to consider how far studies of leadershipconducted outside the educational field, inparticular those of Feidler (1960; 1961; 1964and 1966) can contribute to a re-evaluation ofthe authoritarian-democratic controversy and ofour understanding of pupil-teacher relationships.

The background to Feidler's model ofleadership

Many disciplines—politics, history, sociology,psychology, and education—have made signifi-cant contributions to the understanding of thephenomenon of leadership. The result is, how-ever, a vast and untidy literature which asBrowne and Cohn (1958) acidly observe '. . . isa mass of content without a coagulating substanceto bring it together'. The offerings frompsychology can be divided into three fairly-distinct phases.. Between the two World Wars the focus ofresearch was upon the personalities of leaders inan effort to identify some trait or groups of traitswhich marked off leaders from followers. Thisline of inquiry proved to be surprisingly fruitless.While some studies were able to show thatleaders differed from their groups in a number ofattributes there was no consistent pattern ofdifference across various types of groups. Never-theless, those educationalists who see their majortask as the recognition and nurturing of leader-ship qualities still appear to subscribe to this

'great man' theory of leadership. Providing theyrely on their own unaided observation for theidentification of the critical traits they have nodifficulty in validating their preconceptions.

Recognition that the characteristics of leaderswhich were effective in one situation were notnecessarily those effective in another shifted thefocus of research to a consideration of the contextsin which leaders operate. If leaders are not bornthen perhaps they are created by circumstances.The essence of the so-called 'situational approach'was that a person achieves leadership status byvirtue of his superior ability to contribute to thegroups' needs and goals at a particular time. Butif the goals and activities of the group changethen the leader may find it difficult to maintainhis position. Even those leaders who derive theirmandate from outside the group, as they do inmost large organizations, are dependent uponthe willingness of the followers to subordinatethemselves. This willingness is in part determinedby their perception of the leader's competence.

Although a number of studies demonstratedthat in ad hoc groups leadership passed from onemember to another with changing tasks, theextreme view that leadership was 'situationspecific' remained implausible. One wouldassume that skills practised in one situationwould successfully transfer to others whichcontained similar elements. Experiments such asCarter's (1953) which suggested that there were'families of situations' in which the same leadercould operate successfully tended to correct theextreme forms of situationalism.

The current view amongst psychologists is thatgroup effectiveness can only be understood interms of the interaction between the personal orbehavioural characteristics of leaders, thedemands of the situation and the nature of thefollowers and their expectations. The problem isto determine what are the critical leader-followervariables and with what situational factors theyshould be matched.

The solution to this central problem implies adegree of integration in the heterogeneous dataon leadership which is not yet in evidence.However, Feidler's contingency model doessuggest the beginnings of a systematic theory. Inevolving it, Feidler attempts to predict how styleof leadership, the situational circumstances, the

186

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

7:25

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

type of task and the power invested in theleadership position orchestrate to determinethe leader's ability to achieve productive out-comes. Supervisory style, which appeared toLewin and his co-workers to be the nub of theproblem, becomes only an clement in a compli-cated equation.

Feidler has, however, been primarily con-cerned with leadership in industrial, managerialand military contexts and it remains to be seenhow far his model is applicable to the authori-tarian-democratic controversy in education.

The contingency modelThe basis of Feidler's model is an assessment

of the extent to which a leader perceptuallydiscriminates between his co-workers. The subjectis asked to place his least preferred colleague inone of the divisions of twenty adjective scales suchas:—

Frank I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Secretive

Careless I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Careful

Immature I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mature

The co-worker evaluated in this way need notbe someone the subject is actually working witliat that time but could be someone he has workedwith in the past.

Research covering a wide range of subjects invarious contexts indicates that leaders whodescribe their least preferred co-worker (LPC)in a relatively favourable manner tend to bepermissive, considerate and democratic in theirrelationship with their group members. But theperson who gives his LPC an unfavourable ratingon these scales tends to be controlling, autocratic,task-centred and less concerned with the humanrelations aspects of the job. Furthermore, theleader's LPC rating appears to have a significantrelationship with the output of the group but allgroups do not respond equally well to the samestyle of leadership. For example, output washigher in basketball teams, surveying teams andmilitary combat crews under controlling task-orientated leaders (Feidler, 1958) but permissive,group-centred leaders got more out of policy-making teams and groups which had a creativetask (Godfrey, Feidler and Hall, 1959; Feidler,Meuwese and Oonk, 1961).

In order to know which style fits which typeof situation it is necessary to attempt somecategorization of groups and tasks. From areview of his own work and that of other investi-gators Feidler isolates three major dimensions ofthe group-task situation which can impede orfacilitate a leader's attempts to influence others.

1. Leader-member relations

This factor is probably the most important ofthe three. The leader who is respected and wellliked by the group enjoys considerable power andhas little need of official rank or sanctions to getthings done.

2. Task structure

The second factor is task structure. Feidler isconcerned here with tasks which can be presentedon a step by step basis, with the correctness ofeach stage readily verifiable, in contrast to thosetasks which could have a number of solutionsand whose goal is ambiguous. Unstructured tasksin this sense make it very much more difficult forthe leader to exercise influence since neither henor his followers can lie dogmatic about whatshould be done.

3 . Position power

Thirdly, there is the power invested in theleader's position as distinct from any personalpower he may achieve through his skilful hand-ling of group relationships. This would includethe rewards and punishments at the leader'sdisposal, his authority to define the group's rulesand whether his rank is independent of thegroup's consent, i.e. can his appointment beterminated by the group ?

Since leader-member relations can be good orpoor, the task structured or unstructured, andposition power strong or weak, the three dimen-sions provide an eight cell classification for group-task situations. Further, by sorting the cells firstaccording to leader-member relations, then taskstructure and finally position power, Feidlerarrives at a continuum of situations orderedaccording to their degree of favourableness forthe exercising of the leader's influence (Table 1).

187

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

7:25

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Table 1

Cell 1Cell 2Cell 3Cell 4Cell 5Cell 6Cell 7Cell 8

LEADER-MEMBER

RELATIONS

GoodGoodGoodGoodPoorPoorPoorPoor

TASKSTRUCTURE

StructuredStructuredUnstructuredUnstructuredStructuredStructuredUnstructuredUnstructured

POSITIONPOWER

StrongWeakStrongWeakStrongWeakStrongWeak

Thus Cell 1 represents an extremely favourablesituation for the leader. Exerting influence shouldbe easy in a group where a powerful leader is wellliked and both the goal and the means forattaining it are clearly defined. Conversely, thegoing will be extremely rough when the leader isdisliked, has no sanctions at his disposal and thetask is ambiguous (Cell 8).

The final step is to relate this classification ofsituations to the previously observed relationshipsbetween leadership style and group achievement.This has been done in Figure 1.

The horizontal axis of the graph shows therange of situations the groups worked in, asdescribed in Table 1. The vertical axis indicatesthe leadership style which was most effective ina particular situation. A point falling above themid-line shows that the groups working underpermissive, group-centred leaders (those with ahigh LPC score) performed more effectively. Apoint falling below the line indicates that thetask-centred controlling leaders (low LPC scorers)got more from their groups.

It can be seen that both the permissive and thecontrolling style of leadership can be effective;which style proves to be the better depends onhow favourable the situation is for the exercisingof influence. In very favourable and veryunfavourable circumstances (Cells 1, 2, 3 and 8)the task-centred approach succeeds but in thesituations of intermediate favourableness (Cells 4,5, 6 and 7) the group-centred leader does better.

Application to teaching stylesIt is important to appreciate that the graph

portrays a condensation of the data derived fromsome 800 groups and studied over a period of

Figure 1. The relationship between leadership style and favourableness of situationfor leader

High LPCPermissiveStyle

Low LPCControllingStyle

Favourablefor leader

7 8Unfavourablefor leader

From Problems in Social Psychology by Backman and Secord. (Copyright lOCtfi McGraw-Hill, Inc.) Used by permission of ^fcGraw•Hill BookCompany

188

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

7:25

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

years. These were not ad hoc experimental groupsbut groups which were going concerns in real-lifesituations. None of them, however, was workingin an educational environment and the modelneeds to be validated in a school setting beforeconfident generalizations can be made aboutteaching styles. Meanwhile, its relevance can betested by asking how far the outcomes the modelpredicts accord with educational experience.

The basic hypothesis suggested by the model isthat the controlling, task-centred teacher will besuccessful in either very favourable or veryunfavourable situations whereas the permissive,group-centred teacher will perform best underconditions of intermediate favourableness.

Plainly, exercising effective classroom leader-ship should be relatively easy for a directing,controlling teacher who is not only well likedbut who has the task of getting his childrenthrough a rigid external syllabus. He may outlinehow he intends to bring the class to the externallyset level of proficiency but he will not spend timeon group planning. He conveys to the group thattheir goal is his goal and, moreover, that heknows how to get them there. Providing hedistributes his rewards impartially and solely onthe basis of task competence the group accepts hiscontrol and works well under him. This is asituation commonly observed in schools.

But the model also indicates that the sameleader would be efficient as, say, the chairman ofthe parent-teacher committee where relationshipsare poor and where there is considerableambiguity about what the committee is trying toachieve. This will not surprise veteran committeemembers. In such circumstances the chairmanmight as well try to be controlling and managingsince the non-directing consultative style can onlyresult in the continued purposeless inactivity ofthe committee and probably the resignation ofsome members.

Consider now the situations which are inter-mediate in favourableness for the leader—thosein which Feidler would suggest that the permis-sive pupil-centred teacher should obtain the bestgroup performance. It would be expected thatsuch a teacher, if accepted by the pupils, woulddo well in a situation free from the constraints ofan imposed syllabus so that the goals and theirmethods of attainment could be determined by

joint planning. This type of teacher would notrequire a powerful leadership position. By hisconsultative approach he divests himself of powerand is not likely to make much use of an elaboratesystem of rewards and punishments even wherethey exist in a school. One cannot effectively forcea class to think and act creatively. In a structuredsituation, however, a class may well find theconsultative approach frustrating. The examinershave made the goal plain and the group has beenled to believe that the teacher knows how to getthem there. They neither wish nor expect to beconsulted as to the best way of doing things.However, it can readily be conceived that aninsistence on independence of thought combinedwith a responsive attitude to individual talent, aswell as to individual anxieties, could achievesuccess where the impersonal, driving teachermight fail.

On the whole it would seem that the relation-ships between teaching style and achievementssuggested by the model correspond rather moreclosely to teaching experience than the Lewintype studies which imply that teacher controlcannot possibly work.

Productivity and MoraleFcidler's model measures the effectiveness of a

style of leadership by the group's productivity.The adherents of pupil-centred techniques willno doubt object that, for educational groups,output cannot be the sole criterion. They canpoint out that in original Lewinian studies, as inmany that have followed, morale was higherunder democratic leadership. That is to say,that although the learner may achieve less withdemocratic teachers they like them better thandominative teachers. Bills (1957) has argued thatregardless of output, learner-centred methods areto be preferred because they are productive ofhigh morale and psychological well being.

Unfortunately, high morale has by no meansbeen consistently associated with democraticleadership. Authoritarianism appears to haveadvantages for some individuals and in somesituations. Sanford (1950) found that authori-tarian personalities prefer strong directing leader-ship and regard deviations from this as evidenceof 'weakness'. Scott (1952) reports that morale

189

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

7:25

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

was highest amongst naval crews where theleadership was non-permissive and where leadersexacted formal relationships between superiorsand subordinates. Again, Berkowitz (1953) foundin a study of decision-making groups in govern-ment and industry that leadership sharing wasnegatively related to member satisfaction.

Undoubtedly, one of the reasons for thediscrepancies in the experimental findings onmorale has been the wide variety of measuresused in its assessment. While it is true thatmost measures have some notion of membersatisfaction built into them, satisfaction is itself amulti-dimensional concept. Satisfaction may bederived from task accomplishment, from somereward, material or psychological, which followstask accomplishment, from the activities involvedin the task or from inter acting with othersengaged on the task. Satisfaction in one area isnot always compatible with satisfaction inanother and in some circumstances individualsmay be prepared to trade one type of satisfactionfor another. For example, in a competitivesituation personal satisfaction is often sacrificedfor group achievement because of the externalrewards attendant on that achievement. Each ofthese sources of satisfaction can be frustrated orfacilitated by the supervisory style of the leader,and it can therefore be assumed that in so far asa leader is esteemed and respected by a group heis generating satisfaction in one or more of theseareas. As Feidler's graph shows, this is not anability peculiar to the permissive, member-orientated leader, but where it is in evidence it isassociated with productivity.

Kahn and Katz (1960) have suggested that theleader can affect production in two ways. Firstly,by the attention he gives to planning and co-ordinating the group tasks and secondly by hisability to maintain and strengthen the groupitself. The evidence indicates that either theorganizing and co-ordinating skill or the humanrelations skill can increase performance andmorale, suggesting that morale and productivityhave determinants in common. Nevertheless,high productivity can be achieved at the expenseof morale and high morale can co-exist with lowproductivity. The task skills and human relation-ship skills are not equally important in everysituation and in every phase of the group's

development. What the leader emphasizes andwhen, will depend on his perception of the needsof his followers, their relationship to himself andto each other and his evaluation of the situation.If he gets his computations right he will achieveboth high morale and high productivity. Acontented cohesive group or high productivityare not the alternatives facing the teacher.Providing the situation is correctly categorizedand he can shift easily between the two broadgroups of leadership skills there is no reason whyhe should not have both. But it cannot be assumedthat a particular style of leadership will producean efficient pay-off in every situation.

The mistake of so many inquiries into teachingstyle has been to follow Lewin, Lippitt and Whitetoo uncritically and to represent the controllingteacher by an extreme form of authoritarianism.As Cronbach (1954) puts it, 'Almost withoutexception the dominative leaders are taught tobe harsh, to use hostile comments in criticizingthe students and to discourage student initiative'.The notion of an impartial, task-orientatedteacher who, while he retains control for himself,is nevertheless friendly and encouraging to thechildren is quite foreign to most studies wheredemocratic teaching is contrasted with theauthoritarian approach. As a result, it is difficultto accept that Feidler's low LPC scorer, underappropriate conditions, not only achieves a highlevel of performance from the group but is highlyesteemed and generates satisfaction among themembers.

ConclusionInquiries into teaching styles which have

employed the authoritarian-democratic dicho-tomy have so far failed to provide unambiguousevidence that one style is more effective than theother. This has been due principally to a failureto relate any of the many behavioural patternssuggested by the terms to productivity or moralein different situations.

By distinguishing the hitherto confused factorsof leadership style, leader-member relationships,(ask structure and power and establishing theirinter-relationships Feidler has provided a theoreti-cal structure which suggests a resolution of theauthoritarian-democratic controversy. Both the

190

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

7:25

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

democratic, person-orientated style of leadershipand the directing, task-orientated style of leader-ship can be effective. The problem is not one ofestablishing a mono-causal relationship betweenstyle and achievement but of marrying style tosituation.

Feidler's model has yet to be tested in aneducational context but it does not seem un-reasonable to suggest that the principles derivedfrom it have important implications for trainingand organization in education.

An LPC scale can be administered in fiveminutes and scored in less, but this does not meanthat it should necessarily be given much weightin the initial selection procedures for applicantsto departments and colleges of education. Themodel suggests that selection can be made froma wide range of personality types. All sorts andconditions of men can successfully lead groups tohigh achievement. The problem is one of trainingrather than selection.

In so far as any training is explicitly given inteaching style as opposed to teaching methods(content of task, materials, presentation, condi-tions of practice, etc.) it usually consists ofproviding a student with some verbal descriptionof a style which fits the instructor's preconception.Thereafter the student's successive behaviouralapproximations to this description are reinforceduntil some sort of match is achieved. At best hewill be trained for a limited set of situations and inall probability his preferred style of wieldingpower will reassert itself as soon as the finalteaching practice is over.

Students can be trained to recognize theirhabitual styles of leadership and those of others.They can come to understand why a giventeacher is more, or less, successful than anotherin a similar situation and why parallel groups varymarkedly in their performance on identical tasks.It is only by having some insight into why heexcels in one school or class but is ineffectual inanother that a student can learn to adjust eitherhis style or the components of the situation toachieve a desired outcome.

Individuals will, of course, differ in their abilityto shift from one style to another and in extremecases may become locked within a particularpower pattern. The model, however, indicatesa number of strategies which can be employed by

head teachers and heads of departments to fit thejob to the man. All courses are not equallystructured and all methods do not require thesame degree of personal involvement. Schemes ofwork can be detailed and supportive or generaland flexible. Position power can be increased ordecreased not only by the repertoire of rewardswhich are placed at the teacher's disposal butby the pattern of organization within the school,the status accorded by the school to the classteacher and the position he is seen to enjoy amonghis peers. The group's acceptance of the teachercan be influenced, for example, by the carethat it taken in his introduction to the group,by the attention which is paid to the successionand rotation of staff, by including him in a teamof highly esteemed teachers for a group project,and even by adding and subtracting members toand from the group.

The contingency model does not provide acomplete account of classroom leadership. Theteacher's academic competence, his motivation,the group's skill in relationship to the task and itsexpectations as to how it should be controlled allaffect the ease with which the goal is achieved.Nevertheless, it docs dispel the naive beliefimplicit in so many studies of teaching style thatgroup effectiveness can be achieved simply bythe provision of leaders with certain personaland behavioural characteristics.

BibliographyADAMS, S. (1954). 'Social climate and productivity in small

groups', Amer. Sociol. Rev., 19, 421-5.ANDERSON, R. C. (1953). 'Learning in discussions: a

resume of the authoritarian-democratic studies'. In:CHARTERS, W. W. and GAGE, N. L. (eds.). Readings in theSocial Psychology of Education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

BERKOWITZ, L. (1953). 'Sharing leadership in small,decision-making groups', J. Almorm. Soc. Psychol., 48,231-8.

BILLS, R. E. (1957). 'Personality changes during student-centred teaching', J. Educ. Res., 50, 121-6.

BROOKOVER, W. (1943). 'Social roles of teachers and pupilachievement', Amer. Sociol. Rev., 8, 359-93.

BROWN, O. G. and COHN, T. S. (1958). The Study ofLeadership. Danville, Illinois: International Printers andPublishers.

CARTER, L. (1953). 'Leadership and small group behaviour',In: SIIERIF, M. and WILSON, M. O. (eds.) Group Relationsat the Crossroads. New York: Harper.

CRONBACH, L. (1954). Educational Psychology (1st ed.) NewYork: Harcourt, Brace and World.

FEILDER, F. (1958). Leader Attitudes and Group Effectiveness.Urbana, Ill: University of Illinois Press.

191

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

7:25

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

FEIDLER, F. (1960). 'Leader's psychological distance andgroup effectiveness'. In: CARTWRIGHT, D. and ZANDER, A.(eds.) Group Dynamics. New York: Harper.

FEIDLER, F. (1961). 'Leadership and leadership effectivenesstraits'. In: FETRULLO, L. and BASS, B. M. Leadership andInter-personal Behaviour. New York: Holt.

FEIDLER, F. (1964). 'A contingency model of leadershipeffectiveness'. In: BERKOWTTZ, L. (ed.). Advances inExperimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press.

FEIDLER, F. (1966). 'The contingency model: a theory ofleadership effectiveness'. In: BACKMAN, C. and SECORD, P.(eds.). Problems in Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

FEIDLER, F., MEUWESE, W. and OONK, S. (1961). 'Per-formance of laboratory tasks requiring group creativity',Acta Psychol., 18, 100-19.

GIBB, C. (1954). 'Leadership'. In: LINDZEY, G. Handbook ofSocial Psychology. Vol. II. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

GODFREY, E., FEIDLER, F. and HALL, D. (1959). BoardsManagement and Company Success. Danville, Ill.: InterstatePrinters and Publishers.

KAHN, R. and KATZ, D. (1960). 'Leadership practices inrelation to productivity and morale'. In: CARTWRIGHT, D.and ZANDER, A. (eds.). Group Dynamics. New York:Harper.

LEWIN, K., LIPPITT, R. and WHITE, R. (1939). 'Patterns ofaggressive behaviour in experimentally created "socialclimates"', J. Soc. Psychol., 10, 271-99.

LIPPITT, R. (1939). 'Field theory and experiment in socialpsychology: autocratic and democratic group atmos-pheres', Amer. J. Sociol., 45, 26-49.

LIPPITT, R., WHITE, R. and LEWIN, K. (1943). 'Socialclimates in children's groups'. In: BARKER, R., KOUNIN, J .and WRIGHT, H. (eds.). Child Behaviour and Development.New York: McGraw-Hill.

OESER, O. A. (1960). Teacher, Pupil and Task. London:Tavistock.

OTTAWAY, A. K. C. (1962). Education and Society. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.

SANFORD, F. H. (1950). Authoritarianism and Leadership.Philadelphia: Institute for Research in Human Relations.

SCOTT, E. (1952). Perceptions of Organizations and LeadershipBehaviour. Columbia: Ohio State University ResearchFoundation.

SHAW, M. E. (1954). 'Some effects of problem solutionefficiency in different communication nets', J. Exp.Psychol., 48, 211-7.

STODGILL, R. M. (1948). 'Personal factors associated withleadership', J . Psychol., 25, 35-71.

STONES, E. (1966). Introduction to Educational Psychology.London: Methuen.

192

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

7:25

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14