*00/ SARI TECHNICAL REPORT TR-78-TH2 utm ROTC Validation Study of LEADER MATCH IV, Programmed Instruction in Leadership for the US Army by ,EV Fred E. Fiedler and Linda Mahar University of Washington S Seattle, Washington 98105 and -I. Robert M. Carroll . Army Research Institute •,et q•\•'~e009"1 MAY 1978 o~e DAHC-19-77-G-0004 Prepared for . -. ". U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE for the BEHAVIORAL and SOCIAL SCIENCES . 5001 Eisenhower Avenue ( Alexandria, Virginia 22333 Ap• r(,vfi or puhl W f rPI I' tsW; distrib I.tion rii I ,io I(-. 10 056
Transcript
*00/SARI TECHNICAL REPORT
TR-78-TH2
utm
ROTC Validation Study of LEADER MATCH IV,Programmed Instruction in Leadership
for the US Army
by ,EVELFred E. Fiedler and Linda MaharUniversity of Washington
S Seattle, Washington 98105
and
-I. Robert M. Carroll
. Army Research Institute
•,et q•\•'~e009"1MAY 1978 o~e
DAHC-19-77-G-0004
Prepared for . -. ".
U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTEfor the BEHAVIORAL and SOCIAL SCIENCES .5001 Eisenhower Avenue (Alexandria, Virginia 22333
Ap• r(,vfi or puhl W f rPI I' tsW; distrib I.tion rii I ,io I(-.
10 056
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
A Field Operating Agency uinder the Ju~rIodictloti k( the
Deputy Chief of Staff for Perionnel
WV. C. MAUS1'. RALPH I)USEK C:OL. (;s
Research accomplishedun1der cont; act to the Doparitment of thtc Army
University of Wash ington
NOTICES
DI ST; I EUTI ON. P'risnnrv diiribution of this. resport I'M t'0011 ma~de bv' AR I PIlossr addiess~ corsrewondr~sisscq
Cossc-liniq filtribution of rep5orts i(i U. S. Armyv Resesarch Instilitut 1(), Ithe BEthAV1tni .111d SOC1.sl SCIN'sC0's
AT I~NJ P[ III P, !)001 [ ~i'sseisslq Avs'iiii, AIl'v.issfsiii, Visissi.s ), ":1:33
f INAL DISPOSI TION This reotiot may tsip tlesroypd whens 11 is no( Ilssnips flepild,'s Plitigul (fis 'lot rr'ti,i it to
5155 k) S. Armv Roe"Arch I istoute for this felrtnvisorrq ansd Social Si-sci-ss
\ I hLe1 findint1%~ 11, 11- i'f-1s01I nil 'loti to Isis v nis 'b 15 4% A is oflu ii Ppiat
s'1s nsls s (i5 its,' Amils tpiwus
il s o Istii lsi s othier isuiithotiss do ormiliis' t
Best Avalabt Cp
-unclassified%CCURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Whren Dafa E~ntreod)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS '10. PROGRAM ELEMLNT. PROJECT. TASKAREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS
University of Washington, Dept of Psychology ~ 211OB4Seattle, Washington 98105
I I. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS RT.DATE
US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral anjd May 19781Social Sciences (PERI-RS) 13 NUMBER OFAG
5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22333 1~14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(If differeint troau Controflling Office) 1S. SECURITY'CLASSý'Thrflil. report)
Unclassified
15m. OECL ASSI FICATION/ DOWNGRADINGSCHEDULE
16. DISTRIBUTION STA~TEMENT (of Vile Report)
Approved IJL' public release; distribution unlimited.
17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstafe entered In Block 20, It different from, Report)
1S. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES SeSt Available Copy
19. KEY WORDS (ContInue an reverae side If nocoeeemy and Identify by block manber)
Leadership Programmed instructionTraining Organizational EffectivenessROTC Contingency Model
2 0 \ Aý D S T IR A C T ( C w h t a m , v e n o .l d p N n e c ~e sm y ad i d e a t t fy b y b lo c k n uim b er) iA.self-paced leadership training program, LEADER MATCH IV, was tested ithe ROTC Advanced Suxmmer Camp for cadets at the end of their junior year ofcollege. Of 18 schools with ROTC programs, nine were randomly selected for thecontrol condition. In the other nine schools ROITC cadets were instructed toread the LEADER MATCH manuals carefully. At camp all cadets were assigned atrandom to platoons, and each held four or five different leadership positionsfor one day each. Leadership performance was evaluated by trained officer an~dJ-
DDI Fod 14n3 EDITION OF I NOV65, IS OftjIE 8 Lr%0jAW~~P 73 asi~e nte,-b
SECU//7 Cdt7IFCA3O /jýTI .
Ilnrlagil f i dSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE"oWh Data Entered)
20. Abstract (Continued)
"NCO advisors as well as by peer ratings. Male and female cadets in theLEADER MATCH program performed significantly better on all leadershipmeasures but no better on other performance measures than cadets in thecontrol condition.
The solf-paced training program manual is published by the Army ResearchInstitute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences as ARI Technical ReportTR-77-TH3, "LEADER MATCH IV, Programmed Instruction in Leadership for theU.S. Army," by F. E. Fiedler, L. Mahar, and M. M. Chemers, November 1977,AD A049 090.
illic' I i i d
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank the command of ROTC Region IV and espe-cially BG John M. Shea, COL Gene A. Weaver, LT COL Rodney Winterbottom,and COL Peter F. Wittereid for their cooperation and wholeheartedsupport of this project. Special thanks are also due Drs. Bill Curtis,Gary Latham, and Terence R. Mitchell for their editorial comments and toDonald Schmidt and CPT A. F. Leister for their work on data collectingand analyses.
SI .1' ' " '
ROTC VALIDATION STUDY OF LEADER MATCH IV, PROGRAMMED INSTRUCIIONIN LEADERSHIP FOR THE US ARMY
A field experiment was conLdue, ted to test nlew leadershliip t ta in in,
program, Leader Match IV Programmed Instruction in Leatdersh ijp tor theLU.S. Army (Fiedlier, Ntihar, and Chemers, 1977), publislied as Techn icaiReport TR-77-T4t3 by the Army Research ilst itute for the Behiavioral aidSocial Sciences (AR[). 'lle programl is based on tile Cont ingenc v Model(Fiedler', 1964, 1967). '1lts teorry states that the pertforrmanc e o aleader or a group depends on two interacting factors: (1) the leader'smotivawtonalI structure indicated either by a primary concern with theaccomplipishment of the task 6r the (level opmen t of close interpersonalrelations, and (2) the degree to which the leader has situationalcontrol and influence.
'11Tis approach represents a radical departure from other major methodsof leadership training. Thus, WcGregor's Theory X/Theory Y (19()7) seeksto modify the leader's value system; Argyris and Schon (1974) attemptto teach new problem-solving behaviors; Blake and Mouton's (1964) Maln-agerial Grid seeks to develop ideal behavior patterns; and the moreorthodox leadership training programs attempt to provide specific skillsin dealing with subordinates, e.g., Stogdill (1974, pp. 177-229). Asreviews of the literature on leadership training by Stogdill (1974) andCampbell, Dunnett, Lawler and Weick (1970) have pointed out, there isLittle empirical evidence that previous training methods improve leader-ship performance to a substantial degree.
Tlhe Contingency Model states that we must teach leaders how to modifytheir situation to match their motivational structure. Ibis stand hasled a number of writers to argue that this approach cannot work. Forexample, Argyris (1976) contends that the theory cannot be effectivesInce "it represents too much information for the practitioner to use,"and Schriesheim and Kerr (1978) claim that the theory's shortcomingsand problems "seriously impair its usefulness" (see also Behling andSchriesheim, 1976, and Mcahon, 1972). It is, therefore,'a matter oftheoretical as well as practical importance to test a leadership trainingprogram based on the Contingency Model.
Four previous tes i n earlier version of Leader Match traininginvolved civilian organizations, namely volunteer public health teams,middle managers of a county government, police sergeants, and supervisorsand managers of a public works agency (Fiedler, Mahar & Schmidt, 1975).In each of these studies significantly higher performance ratings wereobtained for trained than for untrained leaders after a two- to four-"month period. towever, such factors as voluntary attrition and thepossibility of rater bias could not be adequately controlled. 11Tis wasremedied in two studies in which Naval officers and petty officers wererandomly assigned to a training and a control group. The performanceof these subjects was rated at the time of training and again six monthslater. In addition to reading the manual, the trainees saw a film andparticipated in discussions. In both of these studies, the trainedleaders' performance increased significantly while that of control groupleaders did not (Leister, Borden & Fiedler, 1977).
Best Avallablo Copy
Csokt and Bolls (1 78) conduc ted 3 I tel d explr ti nt at W'st i'o l t inwhich a group of 154 student ttitairy Yeaders W0t1- lh Siglld rikldOilkl V to
one training aid two control condditioni prior to beitng sint t vt0 'riotns;field Unlits as acting platoon leaders. These leader,; thenl wete eval Iat tdby super Ior o f icoers in the field Lin its who did not kinow which cadet.s hadreceived leader Match training. Trained leaders were rated as signiti-eantly more effective than untrained leaders within thie, same nutitt. latter.Csoka and Bons randomly selected one of three student p1latoon Iveaders in
each of 27 companies to receive Leader Match trainting. At the end of th,,school term , the trained students were ra ted significantl motre oft enthan the other two platoon leaders as betng the best in the ir company.
Thie present study tested whether Leader Match instructton would sig-nifieantly increase the effectiveness of Reserve Officers' Train tuig Corps(ROTC) programs. More specifically, the study examined whether thisbrief training program would further increase the leadership performauce
of cadets who had already received three years of ROTC instruct ion inleadership as well as other military skills. This experiment differs
from previous studies in several important respects. The experimentalconditions could be controlled to an unusual extent. Thie experimentpermitted random selection of schools in which subjects were trained orthey served as controls. Even more importantly, subjects were assigned
to different groups and to different leadership jobs essentially on arandom basis. Earlier tests of the training program dealt with regularlyappointed leaders in on-going organizations in which situations could
presumably be modified in the course of several months to match theleader's personality. In this experiment, the leader's opportunity toemploy the Leader Match principles for changing the situation was morelimited. Subjects occupied each of four or five different leadershippositions for short, intermittent periods during the four-week advancedcamp. This study represents, therefore, a rigorous test of the Leader
Match training program.
LEADER MATCH IV TRAINING
Leader Match IV Programmed Instruction is a self-paced workbook which
can be completed by the trainee in four to six hours. Each chapter con-
tains a short explanation of a key concept of the Contingency Model whichis followed by a numbe= o.."nrobes" or exercises that test the trainee's
understanding of the material. The manual contains the Least PreferredCoworker scale (LPC) which indicates whether the trainee is primarilymotivated to develop close relations with the group (high LPC) or toaccomplish the task (low LPC). Subsequent chapters provide instruction
on how to measure the three main components of the leadership situation,that is, leader-member relations, task structure, and position power, andhow to match one's leadership situation to motivational structure. An
earlier civilian version of Leader Match has also been published (Fiedler,
Chemers and Mahar, 1976).
METHOD
SUBJECTS
Randomly selected from a list of 46 schools were 18 university
or college ROTC programs matched on the basis of previous advanced camp
- 2 - V ra'abie CopY
ru.'r tormaice v co. ;00S swi Lb a p-rojec ted femalet. Iiopu1 at tonl ot l ess thani
ftour for the present yea r 's Advanceed ROTC Camp wŽ re e~limi mated froml thle
se lec tion process.
Tev little Schools tin the train ing cond iti on inclIuded 156 mate and 38
temialte cadets. lthe little control groupl schools Inc luded 1 7o male anid I t,
f emla 1 cadet-'.. The numb11er of cadets R' r schbool. raniged from 1 2 to 4t) , wi t iýI~ ~ ~ ~ h 110.1 of 2-1.5. 'llfti- kavacdcm fall.,; at Lthe end o I thle
c.adetts,' itiin r yvest and is hintended to provide Int ensive training inl
milit ary ttinidamenta Is suchi as leadership, phvs teal ft tiess * d isk-II 1tine,
'lilti Small1 tin Ut t a t ivs. 111 vh amlp alIso pr ov ides anl till po~ Lataut o pp)o r tltnit
to evaluiate the cadevts for selectiHon as commtiissionled officers.. 'lite Cam,1111
there fore, Is ani experienlce Which most cadets tenld to find phys ically. as
Wel 1 I s psychological ly St re-sstul
PROCEDU1RE.
Copies of tleader Mat ch IV were senlt to tihe Pr I'vot50 r 01 it Ii 1l
Scijenc e at eacih of Lthe schlools, in thle t rat u lg "'ond it i on With utm-
t ions. tha~t thle mauna IMs Were to be gJiven to thle cdts'o w weso
s;tudyt onl their owin time or that. t hey c'ouldl bet rea 1 he cadets Jut' klliln.
rgullar C lass hours. Eight oit thle n1ineshoschs opo\ h
trainlugjl, as d i id t inlstrUCt.ion. AllI camp-bounid catdet.S Were givell
tile manlual With inlstruct ions to read the book carefuil l anid LOlto ti re-
pared for v test. 0on thle material. -lite books Were, retuirned to thle inlves-
tiga1tors anjd checked for completeneoss. '1e Mean" score onl Lithe Is it em
test w.as 12.5, indica~ting the c-adets; had read andk undeklrstoodi Lthe trainling
prog r am.
Up)on arrival at Advanced Camnp, cadets froml each school1 Wert, random lIV
assigneid to pilatoonls of approximate ly 40 stuidents with nomoethn)n
or two cadejt.S from 0,eah schlool in Lthe Same11 unit* F-Ic h of thle pla'toons
had two mu it~ary adios acptainj or major andt t sergeanIt ftirst cla'ss
ormste'segeat , whlo remained with thle uniti throughout thle campl)
These two advisOrs alsok servd asevalu~ators Of c.adet I''trac ~
givn te nmesof cadkets who had received Leader Matchl IV training.
PEFRFORM\ANCE CRLTERtA
l'or formiiane of cadets from, trainling an1d conitrol schools was measurtiedonfouir leadershi p c riteria in Lthe case of ma1.le cadets anid three i h
ca~se of females. 'thiese) were evaluautionis by thle platoonl Officer advisor,
noni-commissionied officer advisor, and eer evalua~tionjs of leadership
skills ill technlical and staff areas anld a rating of comlbat leadership
potenitial for males onlIy. Tevautos by the two platoont advisors
were made from the se~conid to fourth week of campv on thle basis of care-
futllv kep~t no tebooks tin whitch thle adviSors reOcred thle cadiet' s muititar
know'ledge , l eader shitp ski I I and potenti-at - At the enld of CAMP, t01080
notebook., were uised to rate. each cadet onl thle fot lowinig 10 areas:
Ie3fw~a\ Cop'J
(I) 1 dILu i ug / organ i i t.
(2) Init iat ive
(3) Interaction with others
(4 ) Setting the example
(5) Knowledge ot militarv skills
(6) Sound decision making
(7) Supervision
(8) Attitilde and motivation
(9) Communication
(10) Command forcefulness/contidence
a chi cadet received a separate score irom the platoon otticer andpIl on NCO advisor. All ratings from a given platoon advisor wettr,standardized with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation ot 20.
Scores ranged from 40 to 1bO. In addition. all platoon advisors hadbeen given instructions in rating per formance evaluations. The two peerratings for males and the single peer rating for females were obtained byhaving each member of the platoon rate each other member. *kan scoreswere then computed to obtain each cadet's total rating and these scoreswere again standardized with a mean of 100 and standard deviatiou ot 20.The evaluation procedures were developed by ARI in coordination with theUS Army Training and Doctrine Command (TrI\X)C). ARi continues to assistTRADOC in monitoring the procedure to assure quality control.
Intercorrelations among advisor and peer ratings revealed a veryhigh agreement between platoon officer and NCO ratings (r - .93, N = 332,p < .001). These scores were, therefore, combined. The advisor'sratings correlated .83 (N - 332, p < .001) with peer ratings for combatleadership, and .80 (N - 332, p < .001) with peer ratings for technicaland staff performance. ll'a•Ltr analysis of the raw score on the 10rating items by platoon advisors yielded a single factor with all itemloadings above .90. The standardized total for these items, therefore,provides an overall performance score.
To detect the presence of a possible Hawthorne Effect, performancescores also were obtained on two individual measures not expected to beaffected by the training. The measures were orienteering, consistingof a map-reading exercise that involved travel from one geographicalpoint to another by following a compass; and the tactical exercise(TAX), which involved solving military problems in a simulated tacticalenvironment.
-4-
RFSUTS
'The mean performance scores for each school were obthained byaveraging thie scores of the cadets from that school . 'he analysis wascontducted on these 18 scores, nine from schools with Leader - at ch pro-grilms and nine from the control schools.
Tlo mean performance of ROTC programs in which Leader Match 1V wasadmin istered was higher than that of control schools in all measuresdirectly related to leadership skills: overall performance as rated bythe platoon advisors as well as performance evaluations based on peerratings (see Table 1). It is equally important to note that the perform-ance scores from the training and control schools did not differ on theindividual performance measures, that is, the tactical exercise (TAX)and or Ienteer ing. Thuts the higher performance of the training schoolsdoes not ;imply reflect a generalized halo effect.
Table I
COMPARISON OF MEAN PERFORMANCE FOR UNIVERSITIESWITH TrRAIN El) AND UNTRAINED ROTc CADETS
Table 2 presents the results separately for male and for femalecadets. The findings for males are somewhat stronger, although not sig-nificantly so, and the difference on peer group ratings for females fortechnical and administrative skills is only marginally significant,although in the expected direction.
-5-
sN
s'141u tt t
0 vi
No
>. 41U:
.A 4 4 4 jw4 0w -ý43 W- 'A) w: w:
H C'
ROTCi Prog r ains ROTC' Programnswith Leader withoa 1 ,eader
a ".,IrcLI IV 1'ra in ng Mat c.h IV T T.1in.. I_1.
°AL:
S1100
ill.
If C
4)
2 v, v.
00
100 K, 1. , NN
L
Figtire 1. Cmparison of t r~ined villntrilined skhool a on overallpe'r forminl~e
The propo t ion of var ir ance in the effect iven..Žss o the ROTC programsin the train ing and control conditions attributable to Leader Match IV issubstantial. Ill 1e is a range fro0M 28 percent for overal 1 per formancCe to15 percent for the peer group ratings oin technical and staff skill forthe total sample, and from '.3 percent for overall performance to 15 per-cent for the combat teadership peer ratings for males. 'he proportion ofvariance attributable to Leader Match 1V is smaller for females, that is,15 percent for overall ratings and 4 percent for technical ald admilnis-trative potential.
Figure 1 shows how many of the trained and untrainied schools fellabove the stantdardized mean score of 100.
The analyse., by individual cadet yielded similar realults to thoseby school with overall performance and peer 2 ratings (technical andadwinistrative skills) being highly significant. (t - 2.61, p < .01 andt - 2.18, p < .05. respectively). 'Me results for peer I were onlymarginally significant (t - 1.90, p < .10). Again, there were no signi-ficant differences on the two measures not directly related to leadershipperformance, namely, the tactical exercise sand orienteering. For tldi-vidual cadets, 61.5 percent of trained cadets fell above the mean and38.5 percent fell below the raean of platoon advisor overall scores in thetrained group. Exactly 50 percent fell above and below the mean of thosescores in the control group. on peer ratings of combat leadership, bO.9percent of tee trained cade-s antd 50.6 perceet of the control group cadets
-7 *1-,:}=!I
f,' l above the mean. On the peer ratings for technical and adm inis-trative skills, 60.8 percent of the trained cadets, and 50 percent otthe control cadets fell above the mean.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study clearly show that the schools with LeaderMatch IV training performed significantly better than those in thecontrol condition. The proportion of variance in performance scoresattributable to the Leader Match IV program was substantial. This wasthe case whether these measures were obtained from the platoon advisorsor from peer group ratings,-although to a somewhat lesser degree forfemales than for males.
T'his study has several practical and theoretical implications.First, the training is highly cost effective since the four- to six-hourself-administered training program is seemingly capable of improvingleadership performance to a substantial degree.
Second, the training can be quickly applied in practice even whenthe leader's control over the group is relatively low. The cadetsserved as leaders in four or five different positions for only one dayat a time. Their formal authority was fairly weak since the groups theysupervised consisted of fellow cadets. Despite these limiting factors,the cadets were able to utilize their training as indicated by theirhigher perfgrmance evaluations.
From a theoretical point of view, these findings support the Contin-gency Model on which the training is based. The results of this andprevious studies (Leister et al., 1977; Csoka & Bons, 1978) indicatethe importance of the leaders's situational control in determiningleadership effectiveness, as well as giving substantial credence to theassumption that leaders are able to match situational control with theirmotivational structure.
The experimental controls of this study were unusually strong. Aswill be recalled, the schools were randomly assigned to the treatmentor control condition. All cadets from a given school participated, andthe platoon advisors wb cadet performance were not informed aboutthe study. Moreover, the cadets were randomly assigned to differenttraining platoons so that no more than one or two cadets from any partic-ular school were in the same platoon. The cadets from the schools in thetraining and control conditions performed their various leadership jobsin the same units under highly comparable conditions, and therefore wererated on their performance not only by the same advisors but also bytheir peers.
The possibility that a Hawthorne Effect could have played a majorpart in determining the results must be considered. That is, whether themere presence of a special training program could have improved perform-ance. However, this does not seem probable in this study. First, theLeader Match IV program constituted a very small proportion of the totaltraining the cadets received in the three-year period prior to advanced
-- 8--
L' 41 Ulp - ell'en uh~rr 111 1 1 11t Iv, . ol II 0 ý I A u'. IV V 0;otuw tt ( I I I 1 ii& 1 1 .It he, give to v rl toull..; :kI Ill .u 'on C0ut ;uI ,t .41 . cao t.Cex ailp i , u c ,I , 0 .
llIyV 0Ui 1 shas I . I tt Le'llat |otn I re 1 at Io 11,-. o t( l't- Ight •iUt• h : :I 'c JillI c.1 If t lt et'd , s anti st I I I kth lit-rs iI ight p1,*V Id i0 d it t Ionat I il n ( It m' C Ik OI ifl l , c.& ,* IhIlt p. BIe lug ass I glued t ki read all Ikdd t I I I ol| mI I lat I kill I 1.,h I woL I dI
t10r t, t0 or , lilt bt ConW d hI d tred - p1 1 lr i c .t Itila % I- Y i Ilnna I eve-%Int bY Imtos;t C.d•,i t .
Nor would cade'ts who dId tnot r.ce l v t this 111.1ImanIna t .t I lthat t t hey had| beenk
depr ived ot an e.'spec- I I 1)y V.t I 1mabll e ex pt vent.
Fltia I Iv. *as ment k•t led ear 3 t- r ,'I llawt Ikr tit, tF k ,t Ihoi Id itnc u t,-i n
lik1110 1C V.3t1 0 It t o petr fo• ri we1 I on all I lllo II.; es oh 0 t a ell d t I 1oi t het, t l edlil
cade t.i i'ht s was not the eas.;e.
'llhe most Important roeiult of th s ex per Imet Is tIthe delu•olst rat io' oti
the dogree to whichI a short tra i tug progrAiu, L.eadielr Matt ch I V, whicht~eaces.• indIviduals how to 0maI[Vh thei' i IeaderShiP I.t Nat Io1 to their
lier sona I I t v o r mo t va t I tnaI st ,tiut, tutret ca htt e sucess Ii 1t 111. The m rquest lonl wi Ih •i now tiet,s to ihe resolved contcerttls the spe'c ItI Ic l-inleller Illwh icc tht- t ra I iII ng was app I I ed by t he sub. cts. For ex le It d Id t het rat nowes at t: empt to mod I fy a 11 or onll I cer t a i It Liet. th'ree maj or 'orm-pollnent of sitUlat iolnal cott ro I , that Is, lIade i I r-elueube er relat tolls. t* askstrrueture, anid position power? Or dtfd high l.l'TC laders vo nc'titrzit v'
their efforts oil one aspectE o f the sit uation iaUd low L.It" leaders kiloao the r? The Cact that the leadet's ill this stludy oc-uptield thlir pos"i-
t Ions oi.1 y for very shor t and Interuitlt t:e t periods o f t.1e stiggest sthat the sItuant tonal rood I. f eat I os they tused mlusut hlavtk betenl rel Iat: ivt I Veasy to -App ly. Sincne the advainced camp was I fa tt r 1 y tt r, t liurted scet t Iligaid peer leadershi p weakened tLihe ir posIt iol power, it setims I ikt, l,that thelt ma or mod if ieat olls mlade by the ROTC cadets mlay have loouseidOil clllhnging ti|advr--Ilellimber retat ionis. ''lese aire, of couir'se, probleIuiswhi[ch call for further research. lin the meatitm,, thie preslent Investi-gationi clearLty shows that Leader Mateh IV traiti uug provides a prouilsingmothod for fmprov ing organi zatit lol performanice.
-9-
REFERENCES
Argyris, C. Theories of Action That Inhibit Individual Learning. American
Psychologist, 1976, 31, 638-654.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. Theory in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. The Managerial Grid. Houston: Gulf, 1964.
Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., & Weick, K. E. Manage-rial Behavior, Performance, and Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill,1970.
Csoka, L. S., & Bons, P. M. Manipulating the Situation to Fit theLeader's Style--Two Validation Studies of Leader Match. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 1978.
Fiedler, F. E. A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness. InL. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 1).New York: Academic Press, 1964.
Fiedler, F. E. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Fiedler, F. E., Chemers, M. M., & Mahar, L. Improving Leadership Effec-tiveness: The Leader Match Concept. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1976.
Fiedler, F. E., Mahar, L., & Chemers, M. M. Leader Match IV, ProgrammedInstruction in Leadership for the U.S. Army. ARI Technical ReportTR-77-TH3, November 1977.
Fiedler, F. E., Mahar, L. & Schmidt, D. Four Validation Studies of Con-tingency Model Training. Seattle, Washington: Organizational Research,Technical Report 75-70, 1975.
Leister, A., Borden, D., & Fiedler, F. E. Validation of Contingency ModelLeadership Training: Leader Match. Academy of Management Journal, 1977,20, 464-470.
McGregor, D. The Professional Manager. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
McMahon, J. T. The Contin3ency Model: Logic and Method Revisited.Personnel Psychology. 1972, 25, 697-710.
Schriesheim, C. A., & Kerr, S. Theorieg and Measures of Leadership: ACritical Appraisal of Current and Future Directions. In J. G. Hunt (Ed),Leadership: The Cutting Edge, 1978.
Stogdill, R. Handbook of Leadership. New York: The Free Press, 1974.
