113

THE IMPACT OF PERCEPTIONS OF LEADERSHIPSTYLE, USE OF POWER, AND

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLE ONORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES

VIRGINIA P. RICHMONDJOHN P. WAGNER

JAMES C. MCCROSKEY

The degree of association between supervisor and subordinate perceptions of the supervisor's leadershipstyle, use of power by the supervisor, and the supervisor's conflict-management style was studied in 87organizational units representing five service-oriented organizations. The ability of the supervisors' andsubordinates' perceptions, individually and jointly, and the discrepancy between these perceptions topredict subordinate satisfaction with supervision and work, subordinate solidarity with supervisor, anddegree of subordinate anxiety about communicating with the supervisor were also examined.

Virginia P. Richmond (Ph.D.. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, (977) is Associate Professor of Speech Communication atWest VirginiaUniversity. James C. McCroskey (D.Ed., Penn State University, (966) is Chairperson at West VirginiaUniversity in the Speech Communication Department. John P. Wagner received his M.A. in Speech Communication fromWest Virginia University in August 1980.

Two of the major concerns of most organizationsin contemporary society are productivity andemployee satisfaction. In profit-making organiza-tions, productivity is directly related to the achieve-ment of the primary goal of the organization-increasing the profit margin. In non-profit organiza-tions increased productivity can lead to increasedservice. Employee satisfaction, although frequentlynot directly related to productivity, is tied to turnoverrates and absenteeism which are major financialdrains on profit and non-profit organizations alike.

Literally thousands of studies have been reportedwhich have sought to link a wide variety of variableswith productivity and / or satisfaction. A substantialnumber of these studies have examined the role ofcommunication in increasing productivity and satis-faction. A general conclusion that may be drawnfrom this research is that communication between

supervisor and subordinates does have an impor-tant impact. However, the way (s) that impact isachieved remains the concern of contemporaryresearch.

The three concerns of the present investigationare leadership style, use of power, and managementof conflict. All three are tied directly to th.e communi-cation between supervisor and subordinates. Allthree have been found in previous research to berelated to productivity and / or employee satisfac-tion (for leadership, see McGregor, 1960; Likert,1961; Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1958; Fiedler, 1965;for power, see Pelz, 1952; Thibaut & Riecken, 1955;

Student, 1968; for conflict, see Deutsch, 1973;Katz & Kahn, 1966; Serelson & Steiner, 1964).

Theoretical Orientation

A mediational model of the relationship betweenthe behaviors of supervisors and the productivityand satisfaction of subordinates was employed inthe current investigation. The components of thatmodel include the supervisor's intent, the supervi-sor's behavior, the subordinates' perceptions of thesupervisor's behavior, and the resulting satisfactionand productivity of the subordinate.

This perspective views subordinates' percep-tions as the primary precursors of their productivityand satisfaction. One, but only one, of the elementsimpacting those perceptions is the behavior of thesuperior. Many other factors, most of which are notunder the direct control of the supervisor, alsoimpact subordinate perceptions. Working condi-tions, the work task, the personality of the subordi-nate, and family and community concerns are a fewof the other important elements which impact subor-dinate perceptions.

Training of supervisors usually focuses on alter-ing the way they see their organizational role (theirintent) and modifying their behavior. Often, themodel employed is highly instrumental-injectingcertain new behaviors or removing certain oldbehaviors is assumed to modify subordinates' per-ceptions and result in increased productivity and / or

COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY, Vol. 31, No.1, Winter 1983 27

Because of the conditions imposed upon thisresearch by the managers of the organizationsstudied, we were unable to obtain data related toemployee productivity. Consequently, the outcomevariable studied were all in the general area ofemployee satisfaction. Specifically, these includedsubordinate satisfaction with supervision, subordi-nate satisfaction with work, subordinate percep-tions of solidarity (closeness) with their supervisor,and subordinate perceptions of their anxiety aboutcommunicating with their supervisor.

The first three research questions bearing onoutcome variables were directed toward testing theassumption underlying our theoretical model as out-lined above. These questions were:

O. To what extent are superior and subordinateperceptions colinear predictors of out-comes?

05 To what extent are superior perceptions inde-pendent predictors of outcomes?

06 To what extent are subordinate perceptionsindependent predictors of outcomes?

The final research question was directed towardsdiscrepant supervisor / subordinate perceptions.The concern was with the potential impact on out-come variables of such discrepant perceptions.Since subordinate perceptions can be either higheror lower than those of superiors, both positive andnegative perceptions are of concern. The finalresearch question, therefore, was:

07 To what extent are positive and negativediscrepancies between superior and subordi-nate perceptions predictive of outcomes?

Method

SampleThe sample for this investigation included 96

units in five service-oriented, publicly-supportedorganizations. Participation in the research wascompletely voluntary and anonymity was assured. Atotal of 87 supervisors and 432subordinates partic-ipated. Data obtained for supervisors or subordi-nates for which no counterpart data were availableare not reflected in these figures and were notincluded in any data analyses.

To insure anonymity each supervisor wasassigned a random code number. The supervisorinformed her/his subordinates of that code numberfor use in their completion of the research instru-ments. Instruments were distributed to each unitpersonally. Because of requests by some unitsupervisors, some units completed the i{1strumentsat special meetings with the researcher present.Subjects in most units completed the instruments ontheir own time and returned them to the researcherby mail. Reports of aggregate data were made toeach of the five organizations as a condition of theircooperation in the research. None of the organiza-tions had a financial involvement in the project.

COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY WINTER 1983

MeasuresIn order to probe the research questions outlined

above, measures of leadership style, use of power,conflict management style, satisfaction with super-vision, satisfaction with work, solidarity with super-visor, and anxiety about communicating with super-visor were employed. Subordinates completed all ofthe measures, supervisors only the first three. Eachmeasure is discussed below.

Leadership Style. Leadership style was opera-tionalized and measured by the scale developed byRichmond and McCroskey (1979). This instrumentplaces leadership style on a 19-point continuumranging from Tell through Sell and Consult to Join,with five points separating each of the four classifi-cation points. This instrument is based on the earlierwork of Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) andSadler ( 1970) and has been found to have satisfac-tory reliability (test-retest r = .85) in previousresearch. In the present investigation, since themeasure is a single scale and was administeredonly once, it was not possible to estimate thescales'reliability.

Use of Power. The five bases of power concep-tualized by French and Raven ( 1959) were investi-gated in this study. The measures employed werethose advanced by Richmond, McCroskey, Davis,and Koontz (1980). This measure is based on theearlier work of Student (1968) which found thebases of power to be related to both productivityand satisfaction. Student (1968) employed only asingle scale for each power base. Richmond, et. aI.,expanded the measure to five items for each powerbase in order to enhance reliability. In that researchthe reliability estimate for each power baseexceeded .90. Similar high reliability estimateswere obtained in the present investigation (seeTable 1).

Conflict Management Style. A survey of the litera-tum uncovered no measure of conflict managementstyle deemed appropriate for this investigation.Consequently, it was necessary to create such aninstrument. Based upon earlier work of Sillars( 1979) a 20-item instrument representing 20 conflictmanagement strategies was generated. The instru-ment was administered in a 5-point, Likert-typeresponse format.

Factor analysis of the data from the subordinatesin this study indicated that the scale was not unidi-mensional. Oblique rotation analysis indicated twocorrelated factors. The first factor, labeled "activi-ty," included 11 items and the second factor,labeled "dominance," included four items. Fiveitems loaded on neither factor and no other factorincluded more than one item. Thus only the data forthe items on the two factors were included in subse-quent analyses. Although the sample of supervisorswas not of sufficient size (n = 87) for factor analyticpurposes, a factor analysis was conducted on thesedata and the two rotated factors were essentiallythe same as those obtained for the subordinatesample. The estimated reliabilities for both of the

29

dimension scores were satisfactory for a new scale(see Table 1), but additional items probably shouldbe added to the dominance measure in future use toincrease the reliability of that measure.

Satisfaction with Supervision and Work. The JobDescriptive Index (JDI), developed by Smith, Ken-dall, and Hulin (1969) was employed to measuresubordinate satisfaction. Only the supervision andwork dimensions were employed, since these havebeen found in previous research to be sensitive tothe types of perceptions studied in this investigationwhile the other dimensions of the JDI have beenfound to be essentially unrelated to these percep-tions. Previous research has indicated both thereliability and validity of these measures of satisfac-tion. The estimated reliability in the present investi-gation was quite satisfactory for both dimensions(see Table 1).

Solidarity. Solidarity has been conceptualized byBrown ( 1965) and Wheeless (1976) as the degreeof psychological closeness between two people.Increases in solidarity are seen as improving theclimate for communication between people. Theinstrument used to measure solidarity in this investi-gation was developed by Wheeless (1978). Thesolidarity scale is a 20-item, Likert-type instrument.Previous research has indicated the instrument has

high reliability. The estimate in the present investi-gation also was quite satisfactory (see Table 1).

Communication Anxiety. Communication betweensupervisor and subordinate generally is viewed asan element more likely to lead to positive thannegative consequenses for the organization. Anxi-ety about such communication would be expected

to reduce the amount of communication sought bythe subordinate as well as the effectiveness of thatin which actually engaged (McCroskey, 1977).Reduced anxiety, therefore, is seen as a positiveinfluence toward superior-subordinate communica-tion.

Anxiety about communicating with one's supervi-sor was operationalized and measured by the Spiel-berger ( 1966) State Anxiety Inventory as modifiedfor use with communication anxiety by Richmond( 1978). This 20-item instrument was administered in5-point, Likert-type format. Previous research hasindicated high reliability and validity estimates forthis measure. In the present investigation, the relia-bility estimate also was very satisfactory (seeTable 1).

Data AnalysesThe paired data for each of the supervisors and

mean data for that supervisor's subordinatesserved as the unit of analysis for this study. Thus,the "N" for each analysis was 87. While this samplesize is sufficient for correlational analyses (powerabove .80 for medium and large effect sizes withalpha = .05) according to the Cohen ( 1977) conven-tion, it is insufficient to detect very small relation-ships. With regard to differences examined byanalyses of variance, this sample size is sufficientonly for detection of large effect sizes. Non-signifi-cant differences and relationships must be inter-preted with these limitations in mind.

Our first three research questions were directedtoward the magnitude of relationships between theperceptions of supervisors and subordinates. The

Table 1

Internal Reliability of Measures and Correlations of Supervisor and Subordinate Scores

Supervisor Subordinate Correlation betweenReliability Reliability Supervisor & SubordinateMeasure

Leadership Style

Use of PowerCoerciveLegitimateRewardReferentExpert

Conmct Management SfyleActivityDominance

Outcome VariablesSatisfaction with

SupervisionSatisfaction with WorkSolidarityCommunication Anxiety

*No data obtained from supervisors.uNo estimate possible.u.Significant, p < .05.

30COMMUNICA TrON QUARTERLY WINTER 1983

** ** .23***

.95 .98 .12

.94 .98 .15

.96 .99 .05

.94 ' .99 - .26***

.97 .98 -.15

.86 .94 .04

.81 .86 .45***

* .94 ** .91 ** .94 ** .96 *

relationships were examined by Pearson correla-tions. Research questions 4-6 were concerned withthe joint and independent predictive power relatedto the outcome variables of the supervisor andsubordinate perceptions. These relationships wereexamined by multiple regression analyses withdecomposition of obtained R2to determine indepen-dent and colinear effects.

The final research question concerned the impactof perceptual discrepancies between supervisorsand subordinates on the outcome variables. Thesepotential impacts were probed with simple analysesof covariance with five levels. The covariates werethe perceptual reports of the subordinates. The fivelevels were created on the basis of the degree towhich perceptual reports of supervisors and subor-dinates differed. Based on the standard deviationsof the subordinates' scores, the following catego-ries were created: Much Lower, Lower, Same, High-er, Much Higher. When supervisor and subordinatescores were within one-half standard deviation ofeach other, they were placed in the "Same" cate-gory. When the scores were between one-half andone standard deviation apart, they were placed inthe "Lower" and "Higher" categories-Lower if thesubordinates' perceptions were lower than thesupervisors, Higher if the reverse. When the scoreswere more than one standard deviation apart, theywere placed in the "Much Lower" and "Much High-er" categories. All tests were conducted at the .05level.

Results

The obtained correlations between supervisors'and subordinates' perceptions are reported in Table1. The obtained correlation of .23 indicates some(about 5 percent) shared variance between supervi-sors and subordinates with regard to their percep-tions of the supervisor's leadership style. Consider-able shared variance (over 20 percent) was alsoobserved on the dominance dimension of conflictmanagement style. No significant correlations wereobtained on the activity dimension of conflict man-agement style and four of the five dimensions ofpower use. The other dimension of power use,referent power, generated a significant negativerelationship. The more the supervisor felt he I sheemployed this type of power, the less use thesubordinates perceived.

Table 2 reports the simple and multiple correla-tions of supervisor and subordinate perceptionswith the four outcome variables. Table 3 reports thevariance in the outcome measures predicta.ble bysupervisor and subordinate perceptions singly andjointly as determined by decomposition analyses forsignificant predictive models.

The results reported in Tables 2 and 3 indicatethat the only shared perceptions which appear toaccount for meaningful variance in outcomes arethose associated with the dominance dimension ofconflict management style. Shared perceptions on

COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY WINTER 1983

this dimension were particularly predictive of satis-faction with supervision and with solidarity. Supervi-sors' perceptions of leadership style were signifi-cantly correlated with three outcome variables,supervisors' perceptions of use of coercive powerwere significantly associated with one outcomevariable, and supervisors' perceptions of the domi-nance dimension of conflict management style weresignificantly correlated with three of the outcomemeasures. Decomposition analyses indicated, how-ever, that supervisor perceptions accounted formeaningful unique variance in only one instance.Supervisor perceptions of leadership style were

predictive of over 10 percent of the variance insubordinate satisfaction with work.

In contrast to the associations with supervisors'perceptions, correlations between subordinates'perceptions and the various outcome measuresindicated many meaningful relationships. Subordi-nate perceptions of leadership style, use of coer-cive and referent power, and both of the dimensionsof conflict management style were the most predic-tive. Perceptions of use of legitimate, reward, andexpert power, with the exception of one instance,were totally non-predictive.

Since our theoretical model suggests that subor-dinate perceptions function as mediators of out-come variables, these results can be viewed assupportive. An alternative explanation, however,might be advanced. Since the subordinate percep-tions and outcome variables were generated bymeasures taken at the same time from the same

people, it might be argued that obtained correla-tions could be an artifact stemming from multiplemeasurement. The fact that no significant correla-tions were obtained between several of the mea-sures of power use and the outcome measures,however, substantially weakens this explanation.

Table 4 reports the covariance adjusted meansfor the discrepancy level classification for all anal-yses which generated significant overall models.Significant models were obtained for all four out-come measures for leadership style, referent pow-er, and the activity dimension of conflict manage-ment style. Significant models were obtained forthree of the four outcome measures for coercive

power and the dominance dimension of conflictmanagement style. No significant models wereobtained for reward. legitimate, or expert power.

An examination of Table 4 indicates that for mostmodels only the covariate, representing the subordi-nates' perceptions on the relevant variable,accounted for significant variance in the outcomevariables. The exceptions were in the analysesconcerned with referent power and leadership style.Discrepancies between superior and subordinateperceptions of referent power accounted for signifi-cant variance on satisfaction with work and commu-nication anxiety. When subordinates perceived theirsupervisor to have much higher referent power thandid the supervisor, the subordinates were lesssatisfied with their work. However, when the super-

31

Table 2Simple and Multiple Correlations Between Supervisor and Subordinate Perceptions

and Outcome Variables

visor was seen as having lower or much lowerreferent power than the amount viewed by thesupervisor, the subordinates were more anxiousabout communicating with the supervisor.

The most striking results were those relating todiscrepancies in perceived leadership style. Whilethe correlation results reported above indicate thatmore positive outcomes are associated with a moreemployee-centered (consult to join) leadershipstyle, the results of the discrepancy analyses sug-gest a major limitation to this apparent pattern. Thelowest satisfaction and solidarity and highest anxi-ety was associated with much higher perceivedleadership style scores of the subordinates com-pared to the supervisors. In contrast, the most

32

satisfaction and sOlidarity and least anxiety werepresent when the subordinates reported moderatelyhigher leadership style scores than the supervisors.In no instance was the "same" condition associatedwith the most positive outcome level.

Discussion

The following limitations of the sample in thisstudy should be noted. First, all units studied repre-sented publicly-supported. service-oriented organi-zations. Whether the results obtained can be gener-alized to profit-making or product-oriented organiza-tions awaits future research. Second, this is anavailability sample. Several organizations con-

COMMUNICATIONQUARTERLY WINTER 1983

Outcome Variables

Predictor Supervisor Work Communica tionVariables Satisfaction Satisfaction Solidarity Anxiety

Leadership StyleSupervisor r .25* .35* .30* -.15Subordinate r .33* .17 .39* -.11Multiple r .37* .36* .44* .17

Coercive PowerSupervisor r -.18 -.17 -.16 .22*Subordinate r -.40* -.23* -.51* .25*Multiple r .42* .27* .52* .31 *

Legitimate PowerSupervisor r -.01 -.08 .06 -.13Subordinate r -.04 -.04 -.12 -.15Multiple r .04 .09 .15 .18

Reward PowerSupervisor r -.03 .09 -.04 .13Subordinate r -.17 -.12 -.23* .14Multiple r .17 .15 .23 .18

Referent PowerSupervisor r -.16 .07 -.10 .16Subordinate r .45* .18 .32* -.27*Multiple r .45* .22 .32* .29*

Expert PowerSupervisor r -.17 -.06 -.16 .09Subordinate r .00 .20 .04 .02Multiple r .18 .20 .16 .09

ActivitySupervisor r .03 .00 .05 .00Subordinate r .67* .38* .58* - .42*Multiple r .67* .38* .58* .42*

DominanceSupervisor r -.29* -.20 -.24* .25*Subordinate r -.53* -.29* -.42* .36*Multiple r .54* .30* .43* .37*

*Significant, p < .05.

Table 3Decomposition of Predictable Outcome Variance for Multiple Regressions with Significant Models

Predictor Total Unique to Unique to ColinearVariables/Outcome Model Supervisor Subordinate Prediction

tacted refused to participate. Third, since participa-tion of supervisors and subordinates was com-pletely voluntary, and many chose not to participate,the representativeness of the obtained data is un-known. All of these limitations should be consideredwhen attempting to generalize the results of thisinvestigation to other populations of supervisorsand subordinates.

Our first three research questions concerned thedegree to which supervisors and subordinatesshare perceptions of the supervisor's leadershipstyle, use of power, and conflict management style.Our results indicate that generally there is littleshared variance in these perceptions. While per-ceptions of leadership style were modestly related(r -.23) and perceptions of the dominance dimen-sion of conflict management style were moderatelyrelated (r - .45),therewasnorelationshipbetweenperceptions of the activity dimension of conflictmanagement style or the use of coercive, reward,legitimate, or expert power. The relationshipbetween perceptions of use of referent power wassignificantly negative (r - - .26).

The fact that positive association between super-visor and subordinate perceptions was observedonly on the leadership style and dominance mea-sures limited our ability to provide a meaningfulanswer to our fourth research question. This ques-

COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY WINTER 1983

tion was concerned with the extent to which sharedperceptions are predictive of satisfaction, solidari-ty, and anxiety. Subordinate perceptions, as antic-ipated from our theoretical model. dominated thepredictable variance in these outcome measures.However, the shared perceptions (colinearity) ofdominance were a significant predictor of satisfac-tion with supervision and solidarity. and a modestpredictor of anxiety and satisfaction with work.Similarly, shared perceptions of leadership stylewere a modest predictor of solidarity and satisfac-tion with supervision. The answer to our question,therefore, appears to be that when shared percep-tions actually exist, they are likely to be associatedwith the types of outcomes examined in this study.The importance of this conclusion, however, mustbe tempered with the caveat that such sharedperceptions may be the exception rather than therule in on-going organizations.

Researc!,! . questions 5 and 6 were directedtoward the unique associations of supervisor's andsubordinates' perceptions with organizational out-comes. The results provide relatively unambiguousanswers to these questions. With regard to theassociation of supervisor perceptions withoutcomevariables, in only four of the 32 associations testedwas the shared variance more than three percentand in only one instance was it more than five

33

Leadership StyleSupervision .1380 .0306* .0776 .0298*Work .1318 .1044 .0075* .0199*Solidarity .1978 .0461 * .1087 .0431 *

Coercive PowerSupervision .1758 .0163* .1459 .0136*Work .0713 .0177* .0460* .0076*Solidarity .2658 .0083* .2435 .0140*Anxiety .0952 .0328* .0517 .0108*

Referent PowerSupervision .2034 .0018* .1786 .0231 *Solidarity .1009 .0004 * .0905 .0100*Anxiety .0834 .0080* .0585 .0169*

ActivitySupervision .4552 .0000* .454 1 .0011*Work .1441 .0000* .1441 .0000*Solidarity .3417 .0009* .3390 .0019*Anxiety .1776 .0001* .1776 .0001*

DominanceSupervision .2891 .0033* .2034 .0824Work .0883 .0061* .0480* .0342*Solidarity .1807 .0000* .1215 .0592Anxiety .1034 .0177* .0431 * .0426

*Shared variance of less than .05 should not be considered meaningful with this sample size.

Table 4Covariance Adjusted Means for Discrepancy Level Classifications for Significant

Predictor / Outcome Models

percent. Thus, as posited by our theoretical model,a supervisor's intent (represented in this study asthe supervisor's perceptions) is only associatedwith organizational outcomes to the extent thatintent is reflected in modifications of the percep-tions of subordinates.

The association between subordinates' percep-tions and outcome variables, the concern of oursixth research question, was found to be significantin 18 of the 32 tests in this study (see Table 2).These significant relationships indicating sharedvariance ranging from five to 45 percent. Higherscores on activity, referent power, and leadershipstyle were associated with more satisfaction andsOlidarity and less communication anxiety. Lowerscores on coercive power and dominance wereassociated with more satisfaction and solidarity andless communication anxiety. Perceptions of legiti-mate and expert power were not associated with

34

any of the outcome variables. Use of reward powerwas negatively associated with solidarity.

Taken as whole, the results discussed to thispoint indicate that the supervisor who wishes togenerate positive impact on satisfaction with super-vision, satisfaction with work, and solidarity and toreduce communication anxiety should strive to gether / his subordinates to perceive her / him as using amore employee-centered (consult-join) leadershipstyle, avoiding use of coercive or reward power orexercising a dominant conflict management style,and using referent power and an active conflictmanagement style. Perceptions of use of legitimateor expert power appear to have no relationship tothe outcomes studied here, so the supervisor maynot need to be concerned with modifying subordi-nate perceptions in this area.

The results relating to our last research question,however, suggest at least one modification in these

COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY WINTER 1983

Subor- Subor-dinate Subor- Subor- dinate

Predictor / Much dinate dinate Much R2 for R2 for TotalOutcome Lower Lower Same Higher Higher Covariate"'* Predictor"'* R2

Leadership StyleSupervision 85.5. 88.1b 84.20 93.80d 72. 1.bod .10* .20* .30*Work 55.2. 52.6b 51.1. 55.70 41.7.be .03 .25* .28*Solidarity 98.5. 93.1b 90.6.e 103.9be 75.4.b .15* .23* .38*Anxiety 54.2. 51.2b 57.50 50.7d 69.2.bed .01 .13* .15*

Coercive PowerSupervision 83.0 88.3. 80.8.b 82.1 87.9b .16* .06 .22*Work 49.2. 55.7'b 49.3b 52.1 53.3 .05* .10 .15*Solidarity 89.0 97.0 93.0 92.0 93.5 .26* .02 .28*

Referent PowerSupervision 81.9'b 84.9 89.2. 89.5b 84.4 .20* .05 .25*Work 50.7 55.8. 54.2b 55.6e 49.7.be .03 .11* .15*Solidarity 90.3 92.0 97.7 99.6 91.8 .10* .05 .15*Anxiety 60.3.b 63.5eda 50.0.e 47.8bd 54.4a .08* .11 * .19*

ActivitySupervision 84.2 85.4 86.3 82.4 84.9 .45* .01 .46*Work 52.3 51.4 52.2 48.7 53.4 .14* .02 .17*Solidarity 93.9 93.0 92.4 87.4 96.9 .34* .02 .36*Anxiety 55.3 58.5 57.1 53.2 53.2 .18* .01 .19*

DominanceSupervision 86.3 82.9 85.2 85.1 84.7 .29* .01 .29*Solidarity 94.3 89.3 94.0 91.5 95.0 .18* .02 .19*Anxiety 55.8 58.2 55.2 60.8. 49.9. .13* .04 .17*

*Significant, p < .05."Covariate in each analysis is the subordinates' perception on the independent variable studied. Thepredictor variable represents the discrepancy classification based on the difference between supervisors'and subordinates' perceptions.a-e Means for same Outcome Variable with same subscript are significantly different, p < .05 (two-tailedtest).

-general conclusions. This question addressed theissue of the impact of discrepant perceptionsbetween supervisor and subordinate on organiza-tional outcomes. The results indicated that if thesubordinates perceived the supervisor as using asomewhat more employee-centered leadershipstyle (consult to join) than he / she did, the subordi-nates were more likely to report higher satisfactionand solidarity and lower communication anxiety.However, if the discrepancy in the same directionbecame large, the impact on the outcome variableswas the exact opposite.

We believe there is a relatively straight-forwardexplanation of this finding. Leadership styles whichapproach the employee-centered (join) end of thecontinuum greatly increase the degree to whichsubordinates are asked to participate in makingdecisions and / or make the decision themselves.When this approach becomes excessive, the super-visor may be seen as abdicating her / his responsi-bilities-the laissez faire leader-or even desert-ing the subordinate. The subordinate may feel thatthey are given more responsibility than their posi-tions should require and, thus, are overworked orunderpaid for the work expected. Such reactionscould be expected to be retlected in negative out-comes of the type observed in this study. Weconclude. therefore, that while the supervisorshould attempt to be perceived as employing anemployee-centered leadership style (consult-join).he / she must maintain a supervisory role and avoidbeing perceived as abdicating responsibility.

Implications for Training Programs

Several implications for training programs may bedrawn from the results of this study, programs forboth supervisors and subordinates. These may begrouped according to our main concerns in thisresearch: leadership style, use of power. and con-tlict management style.

Leadership StyleSupervisory training programs have long included

instruction in the area of leadership style, whetherfrom the vantage point taken in this study or one ofnumerous other approaches. For the most part,such programs are directed toward how the supervi-sor should behave. Usually, the advice is to movetoward an employee-centered or democratic stylewhen possible. Such training, while probably useful,certainly is no guarantee that more positive organi-zational outcomes will be forthcoming. Our resultsindicate that there is relatively little shared p.ercep-tion of leadership style between supervisors andsubordinates. Since subordinate perceptions aremost associated with desired outcomes, unlessthese perceptions are modified by the supervisor,changes implemented as a function of training arelikely to have little positive impact.

The implications we draw from this analysis is

COMMUNICA TrON QUARTERLY WINTER 1983

that training to modify leadership style is a neces-sary but not sufficient condition for organizationalimprovement. It must be accompanied with trainingin how to communicate the style employed to thesubordinates. In addition, specific training for subor-dinates in how to recognize and respond to differingleadership styles is indicated. While a conceptuali-zation of leadership style such as the Tell-Sell-Consult-Join model employed in this research isintuitively obvious to most people trained in adminis-tration. it is not nearly so obvious to the typicalsubordinate. It has been our experience in subordi-nate training programs that presentation of such asimple model is seen by most subordinates asproviding meaningful insights never before avail-able. While such training may result in poor supervi-sors being perceived even more negatively; webelieve, in general, training of subordinates is asimportant, if not more important than training super-visors.

Use of PowerThe results of this study indicate supervisors and

subordinates do not agree in their perceptions ofwhat is happening in their relationships. Power iscentral to effective supervision. However, manysupervisory training programs do not focus on thevarious types of power available to the supervisorand relatively few subordinate training programsinclude training on how to respond to the use ofpower by the supervisor or even how to recognizewhat type of power is being used.

In the data obtained for this study, we found thatacross the 87 units studied the mean perceptions ofamount of power used did not differ between super-visors and subordinates on any dimension. In fact,the absolute means did not differ by as much as twopoints on any dimension. Yet, in no case were theperceptions positively related and one case (refer-ent power) they were negatively related. This sug-gests to us that either supervisors or subordinates,or both, are unable to perceive with any accuracywhat power is being employed.

Training programs for supervisors need toaddress the power issue so that the availableoptions for supervisors are expanded. To manysupervisors the choice is between coercive andreward power. Yet. our results indicate that bothhave negative impact on desired outcomes. Similar-ly, subordinates need to learn to recognize, under-stand the justification for, and learn appropriate andfunctional responses to the differentialuses of pow-er.

Conflict Management StyleThe management of contlict is a common concern

in supervisory training programs, and because ofthe potential impact of contlicton an organizationthis emphasis is well placed. The results of thisinvestigation suggest this emphasis should be con-tinued. Supervisors and subordinates could not

35

agree on how active the supervisor was in managingconflict. Since many of the behaviors included in thescale (see Note 1) seem quite obvious and observ-able, this lack of shared perception is disturbing.Only the comparatively gross type of behaviorsrepresented in the dominance scale appear to gen-erate shared perceptions. The reason for this is notclear, but it may relate to the fact that subordinatesmay tend to feel that the supervisor is more respon-sible for an active role in managing their conflictsthan does the supervisor.

The implication we draw from these results is thattraining programs in conflict management should bemade available for both supervisors and subordi-nates. Attention must be directed not only towarddifferent methods of managing conflict but alsocircumstances under which active and passive rolesare to be preferred. Such training should lead tomore compatible perceptions among supervisorsand subordinates and to more positive organiza-tional outcomes.

NOTES. 'The items on the Dominance scale were: I become emotionally upset

and act as though my teelings are hurt: I use demands to change mysubordinates' behavior; I use insults such as yelling and profanity; and Imake threats or carry out threats. The items on the Activityscale were:I let the issue resolve itself with no explicit attempts to communicate: Idismiss the problem as unimportant: I avoId the issue or the problem; Iavoid the issue and communicate with my supervisor about it: I avoidthe subordinate: I communicate indirectly by hinting about the issue; Icommunicate indirectly by jOking about the problem; I give in to thesubordinate passively; I try to work with the subordinate to reach anagreement on a solution; I disclose information so my subordinate canunderstand my tee lings about the conflict; and I communicate with mysubordinate and consider alternative solutions for solving the problem.For subordinates, the personal pronoun "I" was changed to "mysupervisor" and other pronouns and verbs changed to be consistent.

The instructions given the subjects were as follows: The purpose ofthis questionnaire is to measure the kinds of communication behaviorsyou use when you are in a conflict situation with your subordinate.Please respond using the five'point scale that is specified: (5) always,(4) usually, (3) sometimes. (2) rarely. (1) never. All of the dominanceitems were scored so that "always" represented a high score. The firsteight activity items, listed above, were scored so that "never" repre.sented a high score; the remaining three items were scored so that"always" represented a high score. The scoring decisions were basedon the sign of the factor loadings obtained.

REFERENCES

Berelson. B. and Steiner. G. A. Human Behavior: An Inventory ofScientific Findings. New York: Harcourt. Brace and World, 1964.

Brown, R. Social Psychology. New York: Free Press, 1965.Cohen, J. Statistical Power AnalysIs for the Behavioraf Sciences. New

York: Academic Press, 1977.Deutsch, M. The Resolution of Conlfict. New Haven and london: Yale

University Press, 1973.Fiedler, F. Engineering the job to fit the manager. Harvard Business

Review, 1965,43,115-122.French, J. and Raven, B. The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright

(Ed.), Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for SocialResearch, 1959.

Katz, D. and Kahn, R. The Social Psychology of Organizations. NewYork: John Wileyand Sons,lnc" 1966.

likert, R. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-HiliBookCo., 1961.

McCroskay, J. C. Oral communication apprehension: A summary ofrecent research and theory. Human Communication Research. 1977.4. 78-96.

McGregor, D. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-HiliBook Co., 1960.

Pelz, D. C. Inftuence: A key to eftective leadership in the firsHinesupervisor. Personnel. 1952,29.209-217. '

Richmond, V.P. The relationship between trait and state communicationapprehension and interpersonsl perceptions during acquaintancestages. Human Communication Research, 1978, 4, 338-349.

Richmond. V. and McCroskey, J. Management communication style,tolerence for disagreement and innovativeness as predictors ofemployee satisfaction: A comparison of single.factor, and multiple-factor approaches. In D. Nimmo (Ed.). Communication Yearbook III.New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1979.

Richmond. V. P.. McCroskey. J. C.. Davis. l. M. and Koontz. K. A.Perceived power as a mediator of management communication styleand employee satisfaction: A preliminary investigation. Communica-tion Quarterly, 1980.28,37-48.

Sillars, A. Attributions and communication in roommate confticts. In D.Nimmo (Ed.l. Communication Yearbook IV. New Brunswick: Transac-tion Books, 1979.217-235.

Smith. P. C., Kendall, l. M. and Hulin, C. l. The Measurement ofSatisfaction in Work and Retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally. 1969.

Spielberger. C. D. (Ed.), Anxiety and Behavior. New York: AcademicPress. 1966.

Student. K. Supervisory inftuence and work'group performance. Journalof Applied Psychology, 1968,52, 188-194.

Tannenbaum, R. and Schmidt. W. How to choose a leadership pattern.HarvardBusiness Review, 1958.36,95-101.

Thibaut, J. W. and Riecken, H. W. Authoritarianism, status and thecommunication of aggression. Human Ra/ations. 1955.8,95-120.

Wheeless. l. R. Self-disclosure and interpersonal sOlidarity: Measure-ment, validation. and relationships. Human Communication Research,1976, 3, 47 -61.

Wheeless, l. R. A follow-up study of the relationships among trust,disclosure. and interpersonal solidarity. Human CommunicationResearch, 1978,4,143-157.

Ernest R. May and Dorothy G. Blaney. Careers for Humanists. New York:Academic Press. t98/.This is a curiosity, a little bit of argument. a depressing dose for speech communication scholars. It is all about the decline of the humanities, apessimistic view of employment prospects for the humanistically educated. a prediction of gloom and doom. almost apocalyptic in its presentation ofdismal prospects.

The only thing about it is that it never mentions speech scholars. Thousands of Ph.D.'s and not a single mention. Maybe it's because speechscholars still get jobs. Maybe it's because they don't accept speech scholars as scholars. Thus Harvard and the State of New York Department ofEducation do in a whole profession.

Frank l. Matt (Ed.). The Employment Revolution: Young American Women of the 19705. Cambridge: MIT Press. 1982.This is a simple book, easy to read if you skip the tables, footnotes. and bibliography that come at you In overwhelming numbers. It all adds up to thepremise that women are doing a little better at employment these days than their mothers did, but have a long way to go to catch up to men. If youwant details tor arguing purposes. take a iook at the book. That's what it's about.

36 COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY WINTER 1983