. I
-t·
"'
:-:t.
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSI'l'Y, NOR'l'HRIDGE
MEASURING TEE HEALTH ADMINIS'I'Rl\.TOR 'S PREDISPOS I'I'ION
\\
TOWARD SUPPORTIVE LEADERSHIP
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Health Services Administration
by
-
Michael D. Cragin
Hay, 1975
The thesis of Michael D. Cragin is approved:
California State University, Northridge
May, 1975
i.i
·'
DEDICATION
In studying the history of the human mind, one is
impressed again and again by the fact that the growth of
the mind is the widening of the range of consciousness,
and that each step forward has been a most painful and
laborious achievement.
Carl Jung, M.D., Zurich, 1928
Mindful of Dr. Jung's observation, this thesis is
gratefully dedicated to Donald G. Siegel, M.D., who
persisted in explicating the meaning of pain, labor and
achievement.
iii
r---·--..
·-·~·--·-
-·-
-·-··-·---~-··.
·-··-----···-··-·--·--..- .......... .. - .. . . . ..
~
l
!
TABLE OF CONTEN'l'S
. . . ii
APPROVAL PAGE.
.iii
DEDICNPION • • •
LIST OF TABLES • •
V'
I
vi•
ABS'l'RACT •
. . . ix
DEFINITION OF TERMS.
l
I.
IN'rRODUCTI ON
•i
II.
III.
IV.
. . . . . . .
. . .
1
. . . .
. . .
. . . . . .
. . . .
. . .
. . .
. . . . . . .
. .
LITERNrURE REVIEW.
OBJECTIVES
ME'I1HODOLOGY.
. 6'
i
7<
I
v.
VI.
VII.
FINDINGS • •
. 16:
SUMMARY OF VlAl-JA.GEiv1ENT AND T:R:ZmF.R ~~T-.fiP
I
I
FROM THE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.
~-VIII.
REPERENCES •
II
BIBLIOGRAPHY
!
IX.
. . . . . 17
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOH.M.ENDATIONS.
'fiHF.ORV
18.
. 27
•
• 29
j APPENDICES
. lI
I
A.
l
B.
NEl\L PREFERRED VALUES SURVEY INSTRillftENT.
C.
LIFE ORIENrATIONS SURVEY
D.
CLUSTERS OF SIGJ'.UFICAr-."1' CORREI..A'l1 IONS BETWEEN
LIFO A1iD OTHER PERSONALI'l'Y Jl.iEASURES • • • • • • • 38
E.
TABULAR PRESEN~ATIONS OF Tiill RESEARCH
FitiDINGS • • • • • • • •
I1IKERT ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILE SURVEY
INSTRUMENT • •
. . 31
!
iv
INSTRUMEh~
•
. . . 32
(LIFO)
33
• • • • • 39 :
LIST OI.•, TABLES
Table I.
Summary of Test Population Source . . . . . . 39
Table II.
Explanation of the Likert
Organizational Profile Survey
Leadership Style Score Ranges.
.40
Tabulation of the Likert
Organizational Profile Survey
Leadership Style Scores With
th"e~~L i£-e· o:erentc:rti:ons··~ survey
Supporting-Giving (S/G) and
Controlling-Taking (C/T) Scores
(correlation and mean values
included) .
. . . . .
.41
Tabulation of the Likert
Organizational Profile Survey
Leadership Style Scores With
the Life Orientations Survey
Adapting-Dealing (A/D) and
Conserving-Holding (C/H) Scores
(correlation and mean values
i nl"' 1. ndei'l)
.42
Table III.
Table IV.
Table
v.
'\
Table VI.
Tabulation of the Neal Preferred
Value Scores With the Life
Orientations Supporting-Giving
(S/G) and Controlling-Taking (C/T)
Scores (correlation and mean values
included) .
. . . . • .
. .
Tabulation of the Neal Preferred
Value Scores With the Life
Orientations Adapting-Dealing
(A/D) and Conserving-Holding (C/H)
Scores (correlation and mean values
included) • . . . • . . . . .
.
.43
.44
Table VII.
Tabulation of the Neal Preferred
Value Scores With the Likert
Organizational Profile Survey
Leadership Style Scores . . . . . . . . • • . 45
Table VIII.
Surrmary of Correlation Values
With I.evals of Significance • .
L.. "--~~·-~·--·--·------~--~. ·- ·- -.... ~-. ~ ~ .......... - . ---.. ·--·- ~ .. ----···-.
v
.46
ABSTRACT
MEASURING THE HEALTH ADMINISTRATOR'S PREDISPOSITION
TOWARD SUPPORTIVE LEADERSHIP
by
Michael D. Cragin
Master of Science in Health Services Administration
May, 1975
A study is described in which the scores from three
leadership strength survey instruments were tested for
The three sets of scores were generated by
administering the following three behavioral survey
instruments to a test population of health service team
administrators:
(1) Life Orientations Leadership Strength
Survey Instrument
(LIFO)~
(2) Neal Preferred Values Survey~
(3) Likert Organizational Profile Survey
(supportive leadership scores).
A test of significant statistical correlation was
dei..:ermined for:
vi
(1) Life Orientations Leadership Strength
scores (LIFO) and Likert.Organizational
Profile Survey Supportive Leadership
scores;
(2) Life Orientations Leadership Strength
scores (LIFO) and the Neal Preferred
Value-· scores;
(3) Likert Organizational Profile Survey
Supportive Leadership scores and Neal
Preferred Value scores.
Correlation was determined by the raw score formula
1
for determining the correlation coefficient (r) between
two sets of scores.
The Fisher-Yates table of significant
correlation coefficient values, for populations of r _::_30,
was consulted to ascertain the degree of significance for
the calculated r.
Significance testing indicated that in
the test population of practicing managers:
(1) there exists a significant correlation
(.55) between the LIFO Supporting-Giving
Leadership Strength scores and the Likert
scores for the administrator's
perception of the degree to which he
practices Supportive Leadership;
(2) there exists a significant inverse
correlation (-.56) between the LIFO
Adapting-Dealing Leadership Strength
vii
~---·-~·-·
·-
••~T.
•
i
l'
scores and the Likert scores for the
administrator's perception of the degree
to which he practices Supportive
Leadership;
(3) there exists a less than significant
correlation between the eight Life
Or:i::e\B:·ta,tion&;, Leaaersh:ip ·- Strength scores
and the Neal Preferred Value scores;
(4) there exists a less than significant
correlation between the Likert
Organizational Profile Survey Supportive
Leadership
s~ores
Value scores.
viii
and Neal Preferred
DEFINITION OF TERJvlS
(1) Correlation of Scores.
A mutual or equivalent
relationship between the scores on two survey instruments.
(2) Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine.
A branch of
medicine which determines by examination the nature and
circumstances of a diseased condition by use of
radioisotopes.
(3) Health Administrator.
The formal leader of a
health delivery team officially invested with the
authority of directing the team operation.
{4) Instrument.
A written survey or test which
measures the present leadership disposition under
observation as
perc~ived
and reported by the subject
respondent.
(5) Li:Ce Orientations Leadership Strength Survey
Instrument (LIFO) .
A leadership strength assessment that
indicates which of four leadership styles an individual
uses most frequently to influence others
(Supporting-Giving, Controlling-Taking, Conserving-Holding,
Adapting-Dealing).
( 6) Likert Orga.n i.z_ational Profile Survey (Likert)__ .
A.
survey instrument in which the subject's responses
indicate the prevalent organizational climate with regard
to leadership communications, motivation, decision-making
goals, and control.
ix
(7) Neal Preferred Value Survey (Neal)·.
survey instrument in which the
respons~s
A written
indicate the
predisposition of the subject toward social or
organizational change.
(8) Participative Management.
A technique of group
achievement wherein the group actively participates in the
decis.ion-:'makin.g. process rela.tive to achievement of
organizational goals.
(9) Statistical Significance.
A finding generated by
a sample study is evaluated by statistical analyses to
establish its applicability to the general population.
If
by approved methods of statistical analyses it is shown
significant, it can be classified as applicable to the
y.~ner.aL pu.pu~La.tion
from which the.
bcllll:f).ie
WdS
urdw!l.
, I Confidence levels place restrictions in the extent of this
. applicability.
( 10} Sup__29rting-Giying Behavioral Pattern or Strength.
One of four behavioral repetoires suggested by the Life
Orientations Survey authors on which a subject relies for
achieving his goals.
(11) Team.
A comprehensive work unit whose concerted
effort is directed at delivering diagnostic nuclear
medicine to a patient.
(12) Test Population.
A group of health care
administrators assembled for testing.
Data generated by
the test population will be extrapolated to represent the
X
population of all health care administrators within
certain levels of confidence.
xi
I.
INTRODUCTION
A test population of practicing health service team
administrators will be administered the Likert
Organizational Profile Survey.
The same group will be
retested with the Life Orientations Leadership Strength
Survey and the Neal Preferred Value Survey.
The three
sets of scores thus generated will be tested for
correlation with each other.
!
Should the less complex and expedient Life
Orientations Leadership Strength Survey or the Neal
Preferred Value Survey significantly correlatewith the
Likert Organizational Profile Survey Supportive
Leadership scores, either of the former instruments would
be indicated as preferable to the more complicated and
I
· expensive Likert Instrument for testing the
administrator's potential for Supportive Leadership which
is requisite to a participative style of management.
1
II.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Three approaches were used in the literature search:
(1) A computerized bibliographic citation
list generated by Medlars II, using
the National Library of Medicine
National Interactive Retrieval
Service.
Relying on key words as
Hospital Management Systems, Hospital
Management, Team Management, Managers,
and Manager and Management Testing, a
list of 300 citations or findings were
compiled.
This list represents a
four-year retrospective search
beginning in March 1975 and is
international in coverage.
(2) An inspection of the following
categories in the National Index
Medicus for the period of March 1975
through March 1974 covering the
following subclassifications in the
Index Medicus:
(a) Hospital Administration;
(b) Hospital Personnel;
(c) Personnel Management including
psychological testing.
2
3
,-------·- --
!
Four pertinent publications were
discovered through the Index Hedicus
search.
Index Medicus was not surveyed
beyond March 1974, since any findings
here would only duplicate the Medlars
findings.
(3) Personnel Hanagement Abstracts through
1973 were researched in the following
headings:
(a) Management of Change;
(b) Motivation;
(c) Personnel Functions;
(d) Tests.
-I
Summary
! \
'l'hese three approaches to a literature review
indicated:
(1) one reference to the Life Orientations
Leadership Strength Survey instrument
which included discussions of cross
correlations with five other survey
instruments; specific Life
Orientations Leadership Strength
Survey scores were shown to have
Statistically significant correlation
with specific scores of the five other
leadership inventory surveys.
Appendix
4
D is a summary of these significant
correlation coefficients.between the
Life Orientations Leadership Strength
Survey scores and the five other
surveys.
Conspicuously absent from
the survey are any correlations of
the Likert Organizational Profile
Survey and Neal Preferred Value
Survey with the Life Orientations
Leadership Strength Survey.
(2) three references to the Likert
Organizational Profile Survey
without any correlation studies.
(3) one extensive reference to the Neal
Preferred Value Survey. again without
any correlation studies.
It can be concluded from the literature review that
management research preoccupies itself with:
(1) inherent problems of management as:
(a) communications;
(b) employee relations;
(c) unionism;
(d) budgetary restrictions and
consequences;
(e) plant operations.
5
(2) descriptive studies of the productive
team vs. the non,_ or less· than
productive team generally without
significant commentary.
(3)
(to a much lesser degree) new concepts
of management techniques.
The miniscule amount of citations that dealt with
manager testing usually were suggestive of the Likert
Organizational Survey, that is, testing with an ambition
towards conversion to participative management.
Throughout the literature review there were no references
to testing of a manager's predisposition toward
participative management or to correlation studies
between the Life Orientations Leadership Strength Survey
'instru~ent,
the Neal Preferred Value Survey, and the
Likert Organizational Profile Survey.
III.
OBJECTIVES
This research will statistically test to determine if
a significant correlation exists between:
(1) L'ife Orientations Leadership Strength
Survey scores (LIFO) and Likert
Organizational Profile Survey
Supportive Leadership Style scores;
(2) Life Orientations Leadership Strength
Survey scores (LIFO) and Neal
Preferred Value scores;
(3) Likert Organizational Profile Survey
Supportive Leadership Style scores
and Neal Preferred Value scores.
Should a significant correlation be shown, the more
extensive and expensive Likert Organizational Profile
Survey might be replaced with the more simple and
inexpensive I,IFO or Neal for testing an administrator • s
' supportive potential necessary for participative style of
management.
6
IV.
METHODOLOGY
Test Population
This research was confined to a test population of
administrators of diagnostic nuclear medicine teams.
These administrators have retained their positions for at
least twelve months and supervised teams which deliver
inpatient and outpatient diagnostic nuclear medicine.
This data base may appear narrow, but diagnostic nuclear
medicine, a rapidly growing branch of diagnostic medicine,
can be looked on as a microcosm of diagnostic patient
service, since it incorporates many aspects of other
1
diagnostic and ancillary patient services.
As such, data
i
qenerated by studying a test population of adminisi::rato:rs
of diagnostic nuclear medicine teams, can be considered
; representative of findings from teams delivering other
types of patient care.
In all, fourteen nuclear medicine
team managers from hospitals throughout the Southern
California area were included in the test population.
Particular caution was taken to select teams from various
types of hospitals including public, voluntary, and
proprietary, and with different governing officials
(sta.te, federal, private, church affiliated).
'rhis step
was taken to eliminate any parochial effect which might
result from collecting data from hospitals
similar sponsorship.
operatin~
under
Table I is a summary of the source
of the test population and the hospital governing
7
0
r
·:authority they represent.
The average bed size of the
representative hospitals was 650.
Test Instrument A (Likert Organizational Profile
Survey~
The Likert Organizational Profile Survey (See
. Appendix A) departs from the usual organizational survey in
that it measures causal variables affecting productivity as
opposed to the measurement of productivity itself as an
indicator of group or team climate.
Likert discounted
productivity or end-result measurements.because they
"commonly reveal problems when it is too
late to take corrective action.
End-result
measurements, moreover, usually provide
neither adequate information about the
causes of the undesired results, nor the
best clues to guide decisions to solve
them·or prevent them."
1
The end-point of the Likert survey was a preliminary
diagnosis requisite to conversion of a group to System 4
management.
It is in System 4 through participative
management that a group maximizes itself by showing
efficient productivity, personal satisfaction, and a host
of other beneficial aspects, such as greater group
loyalty, high performance goals, greater cooperation, less
feeling of unreasonable pressure, higher motivation to
produce.
But, the question arises, v-:hat are the causal
variables which must be altered to convert a group to
9
System 4?
Exhaustive research by Likert and others
generated a list of variables which were classified into
three causal groupings:
(1) the character of the organizational
structure;
(2) the leadership principles employed;
(3) major assumptions concerning
motivation.
, The design of the Likert Organizational Profile Survey
incorporated carefully constructed questions whose
1
responses would disclose the position of the group or team
toward these three causal groupings.
Of particular concern to this thesis is the second
group ofvariables:
leadership principles.
As commented
•' on previously. the primary fundamental requisite to
sustaining a successful System 4 management is Supportive
Leadership style.
Likert concluded that Supportive
Leadership style initiated by the supervisor ultimately
influenced the interactions of the group members.
A group
operating in a supportive atmosphere had embarked on the
first step toward a successful conversion to System 4.
For this investigation, attention will be directed to
the responses of those questions (Nos.l, 2, and 3) of the
extensive Likert Organizational Profile, which probe the
2
extent of Supportive Leadership.
The test population
will be administrators of health teams who have
10
supervised their teams for a period of at least twelve
months.
These teams and their managers will not have been
subject to management technique changes during this
twelve-month period.
Inspection
of .the first three questions of the Likert
.
Organizational Profile in Appendix A will facilitate the
discussion of scoring the responses.
The test population
subject is asked to complete the entire questionnaire,
answering the questions as a supervisor of an on-going
team.
He is not advised about how questions relate to
personal or organizational characteristics.
The construct
of the numerical value scale for answering the
questionnaire allows the subject to weigh his single
response to each question.
If, for example, he feels
:'strong about answering the first question wi t:h SOJ\ffi, hP.
' might place the X a little to the right under the SOME
zone of the metered answer line.
The technique of
scoring the responses begins by assigning a numerical
value to each response according to the following scheme:
the minimum score of zero is at the left extreme of the
meter while the maximum score of 4 is a·t the right
extreme.
Each major division in the excursion from left
to right is an incremental increase by 1.0.
Using this
process, a numerical value is assigned to each response
in the first three questions (This set of questions
establishes the extent of self-perceived Supportive
Leadership or supervision.).
The arithmetic average of
these three scores is determined and the first three
questions are assigned a mean score value.
Interpretation
of this mean score is displayed in Table II.
The mean
score of the first three questions (extent of
self-perceived Supportive Leadership) for each manager
from the test population will be established.
It can be
said that as the score of a manager approaches 4.0, his
inclination towards Supportive Leadership style increases
and as it approaches 0.0, his inclination towards
, Supportive Leadership declines.
Test Instrument B (Neal Preferred Value Questionnaire)
(See Appendix B).
This survey is designed to
establish the predisposition of the subject towards
change.
The attitudes towards change in group process is
inferred by the responses of the subject to a set of
questions.
The validity of these questions to inventory
the disposition of the subject towards change was the
focus of the research by Neal prior to beginning a study
on social change.
Neal describes the process of
developing her questionnaire in her discussion on
measuring orientations toward change:
"One hundred and t:wenty cliche-like
statements expressing attitudes towards
change, values, and interests were
formulated from suggestions culled from
.lL
spontaneous remarks, current periodicals,
other attitude scales, and more formal
literary sources.
These were
administered to several pretest samples
for which the subjects were chosen
because of their conservative or liberal
orientations (as judged by their peers).
Selection was made in favor .of those
items that best discriminated between
known conservative and liberal subjects.
3
Those test questions which were given favorable response
by the known liberal pretest subjects were statistically
screened for consistency of response by the known pretest
li15erar subjects.
'r11ose questions shown statistically
'significant were considered discriminatory, or qne~tions
which when administered to a general population could
discern those subjects favorably disposed to change.
The construct of the numerical value scale for
answering used in this thesis survey allows the subject to
place his response to the discriminatory question
somewhere along a gradation between definitely false and
definitely true.
This metered response would indicate the
extent of.the predisposition toward change.
Scoring the five discriminatory questions is similar
to scoring the Likert Organizational Profile.
A numerical
value is assigned the response to each question.
Like the
13
Likert Survey, the minimum score is zero and the maximum
score is 4.0.
Each major division along the left to right
excursion is an incremental increase of 1.0.
The five
numerical scores are arithmetically averageed to establish
the subject's mean Neal score.
As a subject's mean value
approaches 4.0, his predisposition favorable to social
change increases.
Test Instrument C (Life Orientations Leadership Strength
Survey--LIFO)
(See Appendix C) •
of eighteen questions.
The LIFO instrument is a battery
4
The subject is forced into grading
four set responses to each question.
These graded
: responses to each question rely on the subject's personal
experiences.
The four set responses to each question,
I\
which the subject scores, are different for each of the
eighteen questions.
of four scores.
Scoring the I . IFO generates two sets
The subject's first set of four scores
indicates that behavior most relied on under productive
conditions.
The second set of four scores indicates that
behavior most relied on under productive conditions.
The
second set of four scores indicates that behavior most
relied on under defensive conditions.
In either
situation, the four scores refer to the four leadership
strengths:
{1) Supporting-Giving:
___________ ( 2) _ Controlling-:'I'aking: _·
_______________ -~------ ___ .. ________________ .
14
(3) Conserving-Holding;
(4) Adapting-Dealing.
The behavioral pattern that is predominate for the
subject, in either situation, is signified by the
·behavior pattern having the highest scored value.
Each
LIFO survey administered to a subject from the test
population will generate eight scores.
Each of the test population will be interviewed at
their leisure to determine their willingness to
participate in the study.
Cooperating subjects will then
be instructed on the technique of completing the three
survey questionnaires.
Th~
subjects will not be advised
as to how the questions relate to personal or
organizational characteristics, but they will be advised
,that the three instruments are management surveys.
The
subjects will additionally be advised of the
confidentiality of the results and will be offered an
opportunity to review the findings with the investigator
after publication of the research.
Questions will be
invited from the subjects at the conclusion of the
interview.
The investigator will then wi thdra\.Y from the
subject instructing him to complete the surveys at his
leisure.
Statistical
Ana~yses
(Correlationl
Each of the eight LIFO scores (four productive and
four defensive) taken from the test population, will be
1..---·
:analyzed for correlation with the test population's Likert
_Organizational Profile Leadership Style score.
The eight
LIFO scores will again be analyzed for correlation with the
test population's Neal Preferred Value score.
Finally, the
.Neal Preferred Value score will be tested for correlation
,with the Likert Leadership Style score.
Computation will be done on a Hewlett-Packard Model
2200 computer.
For each of these correlations, the
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r) will be
computed following the raw score method of Downie and
l
5
. Heath.
The r is computed by:
i
r= Nl:XY -
(l:X) (l:Y)
Significance of the calculated r will be established
6
by consulting the Fisher-Yates Table of Significant
Correlation Coefficient Values for Populations of n<30 for
Various Levels of Confidence .
.................... ............. ....................- --·-·· ---·--·-------. ----------------- -- .. --------·-·«-- ................ -- ................................ .
V.
FINDINGS
Tables III through VII present in comparative tabular
form the scores from the test population on the three
leadership strength surveys.
Table VIII is a correlation
summary of the three surveys and includes levels of
confidence for each correlation coefficient taken from the
Fisher-Yates table.
7
The significant correlations
uncovered by this study are:
{1) there is a significant correlation
{0.55 at the 95 percent level of
confidence) between the LIFO
Supporting-Giving Leadership
Strength scores and the Likert
scores for the administrator's
perception of the degree to which
he practices Supportive Leadership;
{2) there exists a significant inverse
correlation {-0.56 at the 95 percent
level of confidence) between the LIFO
Adapting-Dealing Leadership Strength
scores and the Likert scores for the
administrator's perception of the
degree to which he practices
Supportive Leadership.
16
VI.
CONCLUSIONS AND REC01'1MENDATIONS
These findings indicate that in the general
population of health administrators, the Life
Orientations Leadership Strength Survey Supporting-Giving
, score will correlate with the subject • s Supportive
Leadership Strength score on the extensive Likert
Organizational Profile Survey.
In addition, the findings
indicate that in the general population of health
administrators, the Life Orientations Leadership Strength
Adapting-Dealing score inversely correlates with the
subject's Supportive Leadership style strength score on
the extensive Likert Organizational Profile Survey.
The simple and expedient LIFO can the:r:efore be used
in place of the Likert as a test of an administrator's
I
potential for participative style of management.
A high
LIFO Supporting-Giving Leadership Strength score which
approaches 4.0 indicates a subject in the general
population of health administrators whose leadership style
is more towards the Likert 4.0 or Supportive Leadership
style.
A health administrator whose score approaches 1.0
on the LIFO Supporting-Giving Strength indicates a .subject
whose leadership style approaches the autocratic style or
non~participative
style of management.
Supportive
Leadership is requisite to the preferable participative
style of management which is expanded on in the next
section.
17
VII.
SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP THEORY
FROM THE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
In concluding a discussion of hospital management,
McLachlan observed that,
"What we need above all is to develop a
theory of management with a strong enough
philosophical base to enable us to avoid
the undesirable restrictions to
individual
~nd
professional freedom
which are death to dynamism."
8
The challenge put forth by McLachlan, then, is to
find a theory of management which sustains a dynamic
productive force in the health organization.
Such a
theory, admonished Plachy, should not place itself outside
:'the cornprehensive definition of management:
;
.
"getting
9
things done through people."
Commenting on this definition of management, Plachy
suggests that,
"We are not talking about a mechanical
perfectable process.
We are talking
about human nature." 10
Schmitz in a study of employee motivation explored
different management theories and reflected that,
"One of the·more promising approaches to
improved employee motivation is
1
participative manageme1:t
18
1
•
This theory
19
holds that all other things being equal,
employees will be strongly motivated to
·do a good job in a work environment
where the organization's goals parallel
- their needs, where at all levels employees
feel that the organization needs them.
In
short, employees should be allowed to plan,
organize, and control their jobs in the
best way they see fit within the
parameters that their levels in the
.
.
.
,.11
organ1zat1on 1mpose.
The research of White focused on this participative
management theory.
His findings which were generated by
studying supervisors in a hospital setting contrasted the
:'effective or productive supervisor wi t:h t.hP wenl<: or
ineffective supervisor.
The productive supervisor was
distinguished as one who was more likely to:
{1) obtain subordinates' ideas on
job-related problems and be aware
of their subordinates' problems
before making decisions;
{2} share information with their
subordinates;
{3) provide support to their subordinates;
{4) have greater trust and confidence in
their subordinates;
'
t.......~•••
-.----
·-~-·-"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------- - - · · · · - - - - - " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
•
----~
--
~------·----·-
------
------~--~---·---
------------
-----·-- - - - - -
-~-------
-----
·-
------
--
-~~-
----· ••
- - ·'
20
(5) provide incentives of rewards and
involvement, and avoid threats and
punishment;
(6) share decision-making, goal-setting,
and review and control functions with
.
.
the1r subord1nates.
12
These distinguishing factors serve to introduce here
a renowned theory of management extensively described by
Rensis Likert as System 4 or Participative Management.
The early management research of Likert and
associates at the University of Michigan emphasized the
effect of supervisory or leadership style on group
13
productivity.
These studies correlated the
productivity of a group with the supervisory style
1
exercised by the manager of the group.
This research
concluded with the germinal finding that highly
productive groups were managed by supervisors who were
"employee centered" and were informal in their approach to
group members.
Additionally, managers of highly
productive groups withdrew from direct supervision of
group members.
Rather, a common trait of the productive
group was that decision-making about goal achievement was
often left to the group membership.
Likert suggested that
a member's identity with the group was enhanced when he
was afforded effective involvement in goal achievement.
Commenting on this involvement, Dale observed that,
21
II
. if employees understand objectives
and have a chance to express.their own
opinions--perhaps see those opinions
acted on in some cases--they will gain a
feeling of participation in the
enterprise, and only as they participate
can they have an opportunity for
self-actualization."
14
These early findings, which correlated high
productivity with democratic participative supervisory
style, and low productivity with autocratic supervision,
were expanded by Likert to consider the full range of
supervisory styles and productivity.
Likert defined four
contiguous styles or systems of management.
At one
'extreme of this contiguity is situated the autocratic
style or exploitive authoritive management (System 1)
while at the opposite extreme is situated the democratic
sfyle or participative group (System 4).
Between these
two extremes are two intermediate styles or systems:
benevolent authoritive and consultative (Systems 2 and 3).
Dale has described the last two (Systems 3 and 4)
management systems as differing only in the amount of
confidence placed in the group by the supervisor
{substantial amount of confidence as complete
.
) 15
confJ.dence .
.
.
.
In add1t1on, Dale commentlng on the
System 4 notes that "
• the organizational goals are
22
.. h
.
.
.
.
.
.
establ1s ed by group act1on except 1n cr1s1s s1tuat1ons.
.,16
The species of supervision associated with Systems 1 and 2
are evident from the names assigned these systems.
Subsequent· research by Likert has generated findings
1
which conclude that ".
. the management system of a
(group) is a major factor in determining its
'
d
.
.
pro uct1v1ty.
.,17
Moreover, Likert summarized his findings
on productivity under different management systems by
noting that,
II
management systems more .
toward System 4 are more productive and
have lower costs and favorable attitudes
than do those systems falling more .
toward System 1.
Those firms or plants
where System 4 is used, show high
productivity, low scrap loss, low costs,
favorable attitudes, and excellent labor
relations.
The converse tends to be the
case for companies or departments whose
management system is well toward
System 1.
(Additionally) shifts toward
System 4 are accompanied by long-range
improvement in productivity, labor
relations, costs, and earnings.
The
long-range consequences of shifts toward
18
System 1 are unfavorable ...
Conversion to System 4 presumes certain alterable or
causal variables which are prerequisites to a successful
System 4 management operation.
These fundamental
variables requisite to System 4 are:
(1) a well organized plan of operation
for the group;
(2) high. performance goals by the manager;
(3) high technical competence by the
manager and staff assistants.
These prerequisite causal variables are basic to all
systems but what distinguishes System 4 from the other
systems are two additional .variables:
(4) the principle of Supportive Leadership;
(5) group methods of supervision.
'These additional causal variables are not only the
distinguishing variables of System 4; they are the
significant factors in implementation of a successful
conversion to System 4 management.
Supportive Leadership as a fundamental variable was
given considerable attention in System 4 research by
Likert.
Likert, quoting from an earlier publication,
suggested that,
II
the leadership an9 other processes
of the organization must be such as to
insure a maximum probability that in all
interactions and in all relationships
24
within the organization, each member, in
the light of his background,.values,
desires, and expectations, will view the
experience as supportive and one which
builds and maintains his sense of personal
,
.
worth and 1mportance.
II
19
Expanding on the principle of Supportive Leadership,
Likert observed that,
. the relationship between the
II
superior and subordinate is crucial.
This
relationship, as the principle specifies,
should be one whtch is supportive and
ego-building.
The more often the
superior's behavior is ego-building rather
:\
than ego-deflatinq, the better will be the
effect of his behavior on organizational
performance.
. Both the behavior of the
superior and the employee's perceptions
of the situation must be such that the
subordinate, in the light of his background,
values, and expectations, sees the
experience as one which contributes to his
sense of personal worth and importance,
one which increases and maintains his sense
.
.
.
.
.
of s1gn1f1cance and human d1gn1ty.
..20
This contribution towards the sense of personal worth and
dignity is the vehicle whereby the group member identifies
·with his group.
As the individual maintains and enhances
his sense of identification and significance and feels his
, worth underwritten in supportive leadership, so shall the
group solidarity and productivity be enhanced.
System 4 as depicted in the above discussion 1s highly
desirable to the team striving for effective and efficient
operation.
But, the achievement of System 4 is not a
simple transition.
In concluding his chapter on
productivity under the different management systems,
Likert noted that,
II
• a science-based management, such
as System 4 is appreciably more complex
than other systems.
It requires greater
learning and appreciably greater skill to
use it well, but it yields impressively
better results.
The route to achieving System 4 might be expedited if
the disposition toward Supportive Leadership of the
manager or supervisor of a group aspiring to System 4
management could be disclosed.
Supportive Leadership is a
necessity which is fundamental to the installation and
successful operation of System 4 management.
The supervisor of a group that aspires conversion to
System 4 must know his predisposition to supportive
26
supervision--a fundamental factor in successful System 4
management.
The Life Orientations Survey instrument might be
considered recommended protocol for detecting the
predisposition of a practicing or prospective health
service administrator toward a fundamental requisite of
participative management, Supportive Leadership.
VIII.
; 1.
Rensis Likert:
Management and
p. 130.
REFERENCES
The Human Organization:
Its
New York, McGraw-Hill, 1967,
Valu~.
2.
Ibid., p. 232.
3.
Augusta Neal: Values and Interests in Social Change.
Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1965, p. 48.
4.
Atkins-Katcher Associates: Life Orientations Survey
Manual. Beverly Hills, Atkins-Katcher Associates,
1973, p. 28.
5.
N. M. Downie and K. W. Heath:
Basic Statistical
Methods. New York, Harper and Row, 1970, p. 96.
6.
R. A. Fisher and F. Yates: Statistical Tables for
Biological, Agricultural, an~ Medic~l Research.
Edinburgh, Oliver and Boyd, Ltd., 1931 (as reprinted
by Downie and Heath, ibid., p. 318).
7.
Ibid.
8.
Gordon McLachlan:
''Effectiveness and Efficiency in
Hospital Management and the Interdependence of Health
Services". Bulletin of the New York Aca<i~I!lY-~9f
Hedicine, Vol. 48, No. 11, December 1972, pp. 51-58.
9.
Roger Plachy:
"Lessons in Leadership". Modern
Hospital, Vol. 119, No. 5, November 1972, pp. 115-122.
I
J
j
;10.
1
Ibid.
11.
Homer Schmitz:
"Participative Management. A
Technique for Employee Motivation". Hospital Progress,
Vol. 52, No. 11, November 1971, pp. 50-54.
12.
Harold White:
"Leadership: Some Behaviors and
Attitudes of Hospital Supervisors''. Hospital Progress,
Vol. 52, No. 11, November 1971, pp. 41-45.
13.
Daniel Katz, Nathan Maccoby, and Nancy c. Morse:
Productivity, Supervision and Moral~- in An Office
Situation. Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan
Institute for Social Research, 1950.
14.
Ernest Dale: Manaqement:
Theory and Practice
(second edition) . New York, McGravv·-Hill, 1969, p. 440.
27
28
Ibid.
Ibid.
-
!
17.
Likert, 2£· cit., p. 38.
18.
~bid.,
19.
Rensis Likert: New Patterns in Management.
McGraw-Hill, 1961, p. 103.
20.
Likert,
21.
Ibid., p. 46.
22.
Atkins-Katcher, Q£· cit., p. 75.
p. 36.
QQ·
New York,
cit., 1967, p. 48.
. '
'
!
L ....... -- ...... ···-····-······-·- ... ··-··-···-·--·· .. ··-- .... -··-- .... ·--
...... ·····- -··. ··- ... .
IX.
· 1.
Atkins-Katcher Associates: Life Orientations Survey
Manual. Beverly Hills, Atkins-Katcher Associates,
1973.
2.
Bennett, A. c.:
"Systems Approach to People
Manage}Tlent". Hospitals, Vol. 46, No. l, January 1972.
3.
Brown, K. R.:
"Program-Oriented Delivery: A Proposal
for Hospital Management''. Canadian Hospital, Vol. 50,
No. 2, February 1973.
4.
Browy, H. J.:
"Techniques for Improving Managerial
Effectiveness". Hospital Progress, Vol. 55, No. 3,
March 1974.
5.
Dale, Ernest: Manaqement: Theory and Practice
(second edition). New York, McGraw-Hill, 1969.
6.
Dielman, R. W.:
"Recruiting and Retaining Nuclear
Medicine Personnel". Hospital Pro9.res~, Vol. 54,
No. 4, April 1973.
7
D0~•rn;
e
Methods.
'8.
9.
1
BIBLIOGRAPHY
N
M. ; 2:nrl Hp;:o_th, K. W" :
Basic Statistical
New York, Harper and Row, 1970.
Fisher, R. A., and Yates, F.: Statistica] Tables for
Biological, Agricultural, and Medical Research.
Edinburgh, Oliver and Boyd, Ltd., 1931.
Fletcher, J. W.:
"A Nuclear Medicine Information
System". Health Service Report, Vol. 88, No. 10,
December 1973.
10.
Johnson, B. D.:
"Medical Matters in Hospital
Illlanagemen·t". British Medical Journal, Vol. 3,
No. 822, August 1972.
11.
Katz, Daniel, Maccoby, Nathan, and Morse, Nancy C.:
Productivity, Supervision and Morale in An Office
Situation. Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan
Institute for Social Research, 1950.
,12.
Likert, Rensi.s: New Patterns in Management.
York, HcGraw-Hill, 1961.
'13.
Likert, Rensis: The Human Organization: Its
Ma!)aqement and Val_y.e. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1967.
29
New
30
14.
11
McLachlan, Gordon:
Effectiveness and Efficiency in
Hospital Management and the Interdependence of Health
Services". Bulletin of the New York Academy of
Medicine, Vol. 48, No. 11, December 1972.
15.
Mate, J. R.:
"Annual Administrative Reviews:
Personnel Management". Hospitals, Vol. 47, No. 7,
April 1973.
16.
Millward, R. C.:
"Functions and Administration of
Hospital Management Committees". Community Health,
Vol. 4, No. 4, January-February 1973.
17.
Neal, Augusta: Values and Interests in Social
Change. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1965.
18.
Plachy, R.:
"Lessons in Leadership". Modern
Hospital, Vol. 119, No. 5, November 1972.
19.
Schmitz, H. H.:
"Participative Management: A
Technique for Employee Motivation". Hospital
Progress, Vol. 52, No. 11, November 1971.
20.
Starcevich, M. M.:
"Employee Organizational
Attachment and Job Expectations". Hospital Progress,
Vol. 55, Na. 5, May 1974.
21.
Turner, G. P.:
"Quality Management of the Human
Pote:ntL1l". Canadian Hospital, Vol. 50, No. 7,
July 1973.
22.
University of Michigan:
Personnel Management
Abstracts. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press,
Vols. 17-22, 1969-1974.
23.
Volante, E. M.:
"Better Management of People
Resources". Hospital Progr~, Vol. 55, No. 6,
June 1974.
24.
Whitaker, P. H.:
"The Computer--Its Value in
Hospital Management". Radiography, Vol. 38, No. 451,
July 1972.
25.
White, H. c.:
"Leadership: Some Behaviors and
Attitudes of Hospital Employees''. Hospital Progress,
Vol. 52, No. 10, October 1971.
26.
White, H. C.:
"Leadership: Some Behaviors and
Attitudes of Hospital Supervisors". Hospital
Progress, Vol. 52, No. 11, November 1971.
't.,.--~~~ - - ·--·--~·-
•
·:'
'i
APPENDIX A
.....
LIKERT ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILE SURVEY INSTRUMENT
'.
.._...., .-vc1t C.Oilrld'cn<c lr>d trust
h
~
,...
In
1~
fue
llub.Qrlllr~ltUJ
~o
I
._...._-.;:.,....._
the., fcc I
lo talk. to auperlors
1t.ovl
~
Jcbl
.. -
-:
...
,
•t•••
I 1
..,... ~frf'l\ ere '"~'dl ..
ldut ,.o..,....,t •<>4 uu4
kl4ooe
tft&tl
contlnu:theiJ1
1. J. J. ouulondly "
t& fi'CICI"'II"Ifll'vtc ft.tdc of
I ,•• ,.. 2
thtot.IU.) ,.~,;,,_,.,,
4 ,....,,,.,... )
,.,..,,.. h
. '.
'
lr.voh·~'""'"''J
I
I
I
I
I
'• ,.,..._ ) and
I
rup.!mllt.111ty•fch
fN' 6dl.ln·fnt .,,,,.,,.,lon's fOot It!
Wert little
~....,~~,.,,._
h.-.orl c-.htt1
..
-~
-.,..,c-
.t
t"- vua.1l 41rcctl0ft
l11ht"Ntlon flowt
~-..c:cvral• h
~r4~vnlut1Qftl
ft..J.dcrttc • - n t
eo,.,.,.
Ros.t:lybrt.~~r4
. ao.-.....
·-ccvr•t.a
.... n,
.I
J
I
.,, ... ,..,
ho...S ., ·~diN-: •• t
-··
At W.at le ... l er•
tf.ec.talona aatd
l~r41fiUU
tr•
.. I
.. .
v~.
•-.----·;"'r ... =· . . -----._- •..~..._:-::-:~~
.:J.:J ' ,. . ..
~-.
I
I
lfu11
l~ccvrue
.
,-..
"c •
Vflll • rec.c.pllw:- .. IM
L-'---J'--':......t-~---~.__.~.__,____._--~..__.__
__.___._--'-...J.I._
.L.L.U
I .
fhr:t~ Ktl~UU
G __
,.,.,. -n
.Qui&• .....
latlitcor W3l1
.....
_..
I __j__L I
,,._, pollq at
Pelh:y •t top.
~c.hiMs
.
.
·:_.,..4tiC'co.oey.,
too..iM\dwp--
fotl-iUy
whirl. 1-vtplciOII
:-".
I
,,.. .. , ct.el
......_..__.___.___.___.___,__.__.__.__.__-'--_ _..__"--''--'--'---'J.
Aow """II <10 lur-e don ftrw:w
~·....:.
lcl.tl-fr lhtlc
LJ~~~~~~~·~~~~~~~~~~~-
h
l&o.t:h~ul
~lc:aliCt\.IC.Ccph~f
~
S
j
_..,,
~"tiClj.ttiDf'l
10
1llrov#f>OUI hot
~11"3ctlon
lllt•tr•tc4
II
.,..,.., ,. .....,
J.,vol"d I•
uh.tltll to lA•Ir ..ar.kl
kculonclly
c,oo,nlul
-
,.,.,,. '"YOI.,.I
kucrallr conuhe.t
.:
-·.,I'
II
.,._., ~' <l.oeclslcn-...altl""l ,.roc. . .
COI\II'"vta to "'tlutl<lo"J'
.:
a.t•tl"ly llul•
·._ j
S
, , ....... 10004
""""'.,... ort''"h•tlon..l.
to-It utt:blhhcd2
aaw
~
cove:u ruru-u
1e soals h
erftrs .....4
~~~~u
:r•
ecwttrl~utiM
I)
h
Afler lhcvulon.
Itt ~Hift.ra
ln.,Ju4
'.
iwlo'I(VO,I•I
.:ontrlbvtlon
I·
trout- cctlo."
.
(cJl.C.tpot 1ft c.rllh)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lent rttllt•"c•
., ,,_,
Little er
Ao441rcte retlsr-ce
~K~n•
ftt"ufttJ
I>
'"
Aodcuu 4otlc,•tlon
te ·~, le-... 1•
Qvrtc
llcJw c ..'IR(Ctttr•t•d ll'e
-.11 U)nlrol functlortd
"'"'ly at to,.
,..,.,~
.;
...
.., lnJor .... l or,...,lutf.-.
ftlhtlflt Vlt tor-I 0o1cr
t~t·e
• II
·•
.
._.,,
.!
/
S.O...tr.u.s
"u•llr
."...
I
a-.. r ••
•~ tcU·iv14o~~I\Ce
pw.olthr-ent
\hat Ire co''•
Jf'ed'•·•UI,..It,. 0 •nJ otfrlcr
C..,....lhtl IIIUC
fori
'VIdtiJ tMrot:l
•••4
'
l
"
ao-·--•1o.clt
•• fo,...l
..
17
Sclt-v.. ll•ru:::c.
•ro&lc..-"tolvl"l
I
D .
It
::..-·
_-_ - .•
--~·~ <!-~
•·... ....
_
. •
!.
.
'
:·~··I
. -'
·•
•"
·~
F
-··
• .·.-
.-. __
..
__
·.,··------·---··-;- -- ------·-
...
---~---
'·
~-
31
.•
.
.. --
~-.- ;;-
-
...... · -
---. •
• -
•
----------·-···----------- --
.,
APPENDIX B
NEAL PREFERRED VALUES SURVEY INSTRU¥illNT
~
-~
(1) l'hei" i.s r"" lly """"thin~
1:_
· ·- · ·
·I
..
;
,_ ·.;
I
-I
to
T "~rr·
(2) H
I
a!Jout cnthu:;i...f(•r c!:.:;.:l_-_c.
rcfre.G~Iin~·
DS:l
fc~ J "'' r·~_.
-......
~
·-·
~-~ .
,- ....
~:-~--<--
•
~ -~-~
: .. :- ·;·. .
·
-.-
·;:;.. ;-~' ~- L---i; ~·;<- ~.--J- ~~-:-~ ·---~-- ~-----~!_
""""
t.oavi ct J\Ja:!;, l ,-oulc.J devot~
r.:ur-1. l~: ~ :c• c~~_.._: ~C' :·o\"C"ncnt :o. 1"hi:; !.er.-:-.s to ~" to
lk' finf ~.C.l]
at onct') .- _-
'l'ruc
llc!initcly
l
_ _
-I
rruc
I
----~~-----~--~~------------J----------~----~
be· a l'rir:ary n"cd today.
Ghould do SO:tt\! ......
thin~ nou ''"' nu:;t rcspo!ltl
False
False
.....
-~
..
..·_- ..·
.. :·~,. ~·· •..-... ~_:.·. -... :
DefinHe)y
Definitely
Chnn~e j l.'C
[._____}_·_a~l-s_"____-~l
1-
____~_·a.~l~s-"--~--4----r__r_"L"--~---&'~·___T_r~uLe~~ ·J...
-,j
.,'
.-· .....
(4) lf you \."ant to get <~ny·..-hl'rl',
it's the polfcv of 'he sys-
-
-~--
tc!Q ns n .t::v,!c that :~-.:-cds. to
~" cha,-.roetl, nQt just the behavior of i:.olatcd individ-
uals.
_. - -
. ·- .- • .. ·-:····_.-.
llcfinHcly
l_r_-.,_-.l._,·,_.c_____,___F_._"_!.._i_"_._~~~-----~1~~-
(3) "J"hc current situ::>t·ion in
the N"f•::r.)~atioa calls for
·'
....
Vcfinitely
. ·;
~.
l>dinitely
Definitely·
False
False
· Truo.
True
I
·
i
:
(S) Any
or~aniz~tional
structure
becomes A dc;•c!!!nin~ \."Cihht
in tine a.nd need:o to-be
rc-l
Definitely
False
'
Definitely
True
'l'rue
~~----~~-----L------J------~----_J-------~-----4------~
·:-;·· .,.-._..,o.·
vitalized.
_.::.. __
.•
.
..
...
-~
·'
.. ·- ...
. -~- ..
~·-
....
.•i
I
l
.
-..:...:.....
...
-~
t
r
...
•
-· -·..
. ~ --~
_;
. ·-:.
--~
~......
.
!
-.:·
I
.:. ·-.
..•.. .
:-·: • -: . -- - .~ -":! -=-: .... _: .•
;'.:
~:·:
!.:· i ..
·• i
I·
~-
·.
.~--.
.
--~
•.
-
-.
. -· ~-- ...
.....
.. ... .. -··
.
1.
;It~-1
. . !
:
. :·:;,
..-.
.. ~- ·.
I ..
-:~· -~-
.-......_.
.
. ·.. :
.
.
.
.
,-:.
.-: .- :-,: ' _:,·; ._: ._;·::=:-:-\<~!~::~~;(:s·~-- >":~:.:~~~~~-~\~:~_~:-,'_ . x~-.·:._-.-
_-; .
..•::
·- ·:•
~
..
I;
·-
•• •
-
~·
••• :_
. ·.'#-~ ........... .
·,: ·-···
,.- -~ ·•. . -: .•-__ -·_.-_.-_--•• --.·,# -_·_--.---~:_:::. _._· .-
.-.
.
.
•.
··:
_
----~ ~; ·-;:·!: :... ; -·:_: ..
... _:··
. j•::- ·.
L_____,..._----~.
·-
..:··>"":· .. ·..... '·
:
32
·-
.. '. ~:~.-~_-,·.-: ...
- ..
,·::·
•
. ~: :·
.
• 1' .•
:,··
..
APPENDIX C
LIFE .ORIENTATIONS SURVEY INSTRUMENT .. (LIFO)
I•
.·1
I
I
. :
.
:
.
-
·- .. . --· .•. .. '
-~:-
-
f'
DIRECTIONS
t·
.-..-.~- -~..----
-./:,. · ....
This· is not a test with right or wrong answers.
It is a questionnaire which
permits you to describe your ma,or and m1nor orientations to life, in order
to ident1fy the productive and counterproductive ways 1n which you use your
strengths. .You will be g1vcn self-descriptive statements, each followed by
four posc;.ihiP Pnrfin~~
You ?rP. ~0 ~~-j:::-c!: t~iC c;-~~.- ;n •'vh:c;; ,uu ;..,ld CCh.. i)
ending applies to you.
In the blank spaces to the left of each end1ng. 1111
in the numbers 4, 3, 2, and 1, according to wh1ch ending is most like you
~ and least hl<e you...J.!l
·i
~-.
·?'·
PLEASE FILL IN THIS EXAMPLE -. ·:
.-
....l
MOST OF THE TIME I AM:
....... ·
.-
good-natured and helpful. . . . . . . • . • . . . . . .- .
hard-working and lull of plans ......••..•••
economical and thoughtful . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . .
charming and popular, . . . . . . . • . . . • . . ·, ·...
...
(
(
(
( .
... :·
_
t
/··
t
i
.I
-
.
>.
-:•.
i
~·:
. -~· . :.. :..
-TEAR OFF THIS PAGE AND
.
.
PROC~ED
·. -i
..
00 NOT USE 4. 3. 2, or 1 MORE THAN ONCE.
If the statements that follow in this questionna"e have two or more endings ·
that seem equally l1ke you, or are not l1ke you at all. please rank them anyway, even though it may be difficult. Each endmg must . be ranked 4, 3, 2.
or 1. .
•.
..
...
F,.
_
....
. .. ~~- :
...
WITH QUESTIONS ON PAGE 1
COPYRIGHT() 1961.1911
.
AlKU4S-KAlCHER ASSOCIATES. lNC .
...
l··
:-.........:.._
·,.
. .-.- ---~
.•
-.,
·:-·
..
•.
·--:~.-·
·
33
:;:_._·.
..
...
",;
. -·
34
.
PAGE
r-c
0
0
0
0
\.
H
(._
0
L
D
--H
E:
. l
·i
fEEL MOST
E
1'N
00
(J)
L()
;_ 0
0
0
+
2. sec an opportunrty for leadership and go alter it.
+
3. look after my own interests ;;nd let others look alter
+
+
+
(
c
._ C'
c
+
~-
•..;
..::-..._:..
I 0+
0 +
I
-:..
lor adv1ce.
10. ontercstcd and enthus1astrc at..~ut JOrnrng me rn what
I want to do.
11. tustty treated. respected. and apprecrauve of the
-conSiderat•on I give them.
12. pleased. unpressed. and dcsrrous of havong me around.
+
+
+
0+
0
0
D
..
~ ~
-
. ,
·--.!
~
13. relyrng on the other person·s sense of IUSt1ce.
--
.
·-
_., ...._,, t·
...
14. !ryii·~g tv out~ii (:' oulrnaueuvcr the oo.hc.r person.
i
f
15. remaining composed. methOdical. and immovable.
I.
t··
16. being open-mmded and adaptable to the other person.
.. IN .RELATIHG TO OTHERS I MAY:
I 0+
0
'.'
-.
9. well regarded. capable. and worthy of being called on
~-
0 ...
·I o
I o
.-
-IN A DISAGREEMENT WITH ANOTHER PER SOU I CAN GAIN MORE BY.:
+
Ci
'!
. . ·:
c:
i
.
6. an actrve. energetiC, and self-conltdent manner.
_I MAKE OTHERS FEEL:
+
0+
0
;
AM MOST APT TO TREAT OTHERS II~:
5. a respectful. pohtc. and admrrmg manner.
8. a congenial. soc•al. and friendly manner.
+
their~.-
myself to lit in '"111 ti>c 91 oup I am
0
0+
(
~dJUSt
7. a careful. reserved. and orderly manner:
·,·-0
_-,
- 4.
0+
0
(
WITH MYSELF WilEN 1:
1. acl ,-dcahsttCi:tlly and w1th optun•sm.
R
J
PLEA~ED
+
+
+
+
17. become conhdent1at and g1ve my trust evero to those who
do not s~em to seek ot.
18. become aggressrve and take advantage of them. before
realizmg I have not g1ven them much cons<deratron.
19. become suspiCIOus and aloof and treat them w1th too
much reserve.
20. become too lroendly and lmd my,elf woth people. ~ven
when I am not espec•ally mv•ted.
:;_I IMPRESS OTHERS J.S:
.. ':. ...
~\
v'
1-
-f. _. . ;
:·_,
24. an inconsrstent person who neve·r takes a real stand
ot hos own.
COPVJIIGHf
ct:1
t%i
._-
r-·
'>
21. a narve person who has l:!lle self-conhdence or
init1attve.
22. a .. sharp operator .. who always tnes to get the best of
the bargarn.
·
23: a stubborn md1V1dual who is cold toward others.
. . '-·
···:
. . :_.
ttji1
·. .
:·.
-_
,U.,.1,4S ,;,A J(.Hl P. .lS$.0(..io\ T£"i INC
. '~-
- - - - T E A R OFF THIS PAGE AND PROCEED WITH PAGE 2.
- -; ------ ....
-
-~,
·-.-·-
. ..
'
!·
_ - _
4'
·
...
~
.... -
•••
.
:.
-.
.· .·
- ....
~
~;
: __ ..
-.:_.
·'
...... --
..
. : . ~- -
-·---
'~-
~:.,.
·'
-,-.
.,
35
.
....
PAGE 2
FEEL I CAN fiEST liiN PEOPLE OVER BY BEING:
0+
:D
25. modest and ideahshc.
+,
0+
0 "+
•I
-= ... -~--"""-
r----..-.. -~--;.:::........_-;-.;..- -- . .
·.·
IN RELATING TO OTHERS I AM MOST APT TO BE:
-;.
29. trusting. conf,ding. and suppo,tivc of others.
30. qu;ck ·to develop useful ideas and to organize
others to carry H1em out.
31. practical. togocal. and careful to l.now woth
whom I om <Jeahng.
32. curious to know all about them and anxious to
....- .
lot in woth what they expect or me.
FIND IT MOST SATISFYING WHEH
0+
0
- . . . :-. -:---";-...: :_,:~. . ~ . .:~- ~-..;...----~~~-=~.
26 ..entertaining and lively.
0+
0+
0+
0+
.__._
·,_._._ i
. ..... r-,
·,.
27. patient and practical.
-l
..
26. persuasive and winning.
OTHEF~S
SEE ME AS:
~:-
33. a loyal. trustong lroend.
+.
0+
0+
.
~-.
-.
'.· ->. . - ::---. _,_,__.
34. a person who can lake ideas and make them work,''"35. a person who is practical and thinks lor himself.
~
36. a noteworthy and sognilocant person.
.·..... . . r
~-
.·
!_
..
IF I DON'T GET WHAT I WAHT FROM A PE:RSO!i I TEND TO:
37. gove up reac1oly and just•fy his. inabolity to do it.
0+
\
·o
+
-.
,..
·..
·'
.'
.[.,,""
..
it anyway.
39. feel ind•llerent and lind another way to get
what I want.
.CO. laugh rl off and be lle~it>lo about the whole thing ..
.+
·.'
'·
_~.:.·.:·':
~
I
IN THE FACE OF FAILURE I FEEL IT IS BEST TO:
.Cl. turn to others and count on them to help me out
0+
0+
0+
0+
~
'·
;.·i
36. claim my rights and try to talk him into doing
0+
:0
-:,.•.-.
42. light lor
IH)'
L
i'." .
I· .
(<
rights and lake what I really deserve.
43. hold on llgl11 to what I already have and keep
a dose eye on others.
44. keep up a front and try to sell myself as well as
pOSSible.
...
---....
I'M. FEARFUL THAT AT TIMES I MAY IMPRESS OTHERS AS BEING:'
0+
0+
•s.
....i
---._,.
47.
0
+
46. supertoc•al and anention-seek;ng.
co~d
C~YH:C_.Ht
and stubborn.
,·
- f ·_. ~.
!{) 1'1b7 11)/1
ATKtNS-KAtCHt:.A ASSOCIATtS lNC
I
.
,,,
.··-,.-.
•..
- - - - T E A R OFF THiS PAGE AND PROCEED WITH PAGE 3
... ---r-...
::~·
--
.:. ::· ~...-:
.-
.
.
}
-~·
:- ·~~-~ :. ·._··
. .·.:.-: -. . . ?-
. _:~ _._.
~
;_-.- .
:··· -·-··- :·· -·~-;~c _._.. ---~---
";•"
l·- ·.
46. aggressive and conceited.
+
·.;
t. ->·
s.ubmtsstvc and tmpress1onable.
·o
...
:~
.-~--7~--~-:-~ ..:~ ':;.:.·:~·;:~·~-:~L~:.~-:; ~:_"-:_;.-~-:. .). -_-;,.;~--~--:;.;_: ~~:- - :
'-·
. '·-·-..-·.· -··
· . ·.-_.
....
..
-·: -
·.- ;-"_ ~
......
36
· PAGE 3
FE.EL THE BEST WAY TO GET At!EA[> IH TtiE WORLD 15 TO:
0
0
D
0
49. bo a worthy p£;r~un and count on those in authonty
to recogniZe that worth.
50. work to estabfl~il a rig'lt to advancement. and
then c.laim it.
51. preserve and build on what already havo.·
• - ....
-~ •
. .....
0
0
0
53. lind out from others how they have met the problem
and follow the•r adw•cc.
54. match wtts with the person and get around htm
as bes! I can.
55. decide for myself what IS right and then stand by
:J
56. change myselt to l•t in and make the rclat1onsh•p
rncrc harf"Tlomous.
~
57. a trustang person who apprectates advice and
counsel.
58. _a self-confident person who takes the initiative
in gettang people go•ng.
.,·
59. a steadfast person who deals with others
in a careful manner.
60. an ent~us•ast1c person who can lit in with
almos! anyone.
•.
61. s1mply accept defeat ano
I
D
.
'
0
:J
;
.!·
. : ~-
.
4 .
_..
·~
~
_,... ...
~~,._-----_.;
--~
...., ...... •.- .;;.· -.:• .:.- :· - .
~ .M-;~
...... ,. .
.-.-~.--~
·-
i
t
for what I want
-)· l
--1
.-,_.
_--~._ : ..:~··~·~·f
:·_
AT TIMES I AM APT TO BE:
~
..
-
:
66. aggressive, grasping, and concetled.
=
67. suspicious. cold, and critical.
·'
68. chiidish. and given to seeking the spotlight.
~AT
·-- .... f ·-;
1"1MES I MAY MAKE: OTHER PEOPLE FEEL:
-:...~·-"'·--
'-
;·
69. superaor and condescendmg toward me.
-~-
-
70. taken advantage of and angry with me.
,.-
..
:~.--
.• ._.
71. distant and cold toward me.
72. mistrustful and
di~believing
toward rne .
__.,--_.
.._.-.····
COPYFltGtH (.() t967 1971
~:-
- ..... ·-
. ·-"'-
' .[ :
..· r.~-·-'
-~-
·.!. ..
. I -TEAR OFF THIS PAGE AND SC011E ANSWEHS ON NEXT PAGE.
:-·-.·-··--·
:.. _.- . -: ~~--
;.
.
. .
.t
.
65. easily influenced and without confidence.
ATKINS-K•HCHER ASSOCIATES. II'.C
...
·. •"'-·••-
clsev~here.
0
0
0
D
0
loo~
62. engage, in a contest of WitS, r«ther than lose
out and get nothing.
63. be suspicious and possessive. rather than
give up what I have.
64. compromise and go along for the ·time being.
Q
._...,
>--~- - - - ...... -
. . _.;.= ,-
I FEEL THAT IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS IT I$ BETTER TO:
:J
0
·,. . _·.-,f.
~--~ •• · · - ---- :.:.~- ;.,__-: .... _ ~:-- - ....
my own conv1ct•ons.
I IMPRESS OTHERS AS:
....
.:
.., ...~ .. ......,...---.,;..
52. develop a wtnntng personality that wdl attract
the notice or onwrs.
IN SOLVING TilE PROBLEM OF \\OR KING WITH A DIFFICULT PER>ON, I:
-~
. _-·-
:--.-·
·.
•· ..
·..
- :... .·· .
_
...-_. ...
_·
-.".
··.:~·-.
....• ..
--~:::··;---~--:
,..
r
~
•
.
...
~-
;_·,;~_· . •
,jf
•·
LIF$'- .
.ADD YOUR ANSWERS IIORIZONTALLY AND
l'lAC[ SUM IN llJlLf.'[() l'OXES.
LIFE 01\!EH lt1 liO:lS '" SUP.VEY
TtitN ADD BO>.ES VeRTICALLY
AS INDICATED CY ARf<OWS.
NAME·
GROUP: _____________
A
AGE:
DATE:
B
FEMALE0
.-
c
;.·
;
~
- -:
cr
_ f..!AL(
.
·-·
.--
E
--------+
• G
. ~-
1---------~-----------1-------~
H
:. :
-·-
~-
'.
'!
:-
---·-
J
-_;..
·•
-.-:- ._..
:·
-·:;-._-~_--
..
~-~:...;
.
.
__........
;_
~_-,
:_·
l
I
1·
SCO~ES
..
'9
D
• +
+
"t01Al.
+
•to
·-
AD OL
CS HD
1-------..
b
- ~'
-·..-:--.
·.
i
e
i
. ·. '.
'
_
__
·
'·;
,·, ....
.
',.
~
:-~
-~
.
'-
_.-~
.,
•· _,.
I
·-:···""".
-.
.:
---;-...~···-·-
. -- ... --,-.
~.:--:·
..
,>-
·•.;.::··
. ~, .... ·_.
'
•.
.J _-·
l:-_ --~~~c_.;·.;.. --~- ~-
-_ ~=-- ~.:. --~ .- --~- .. :
} · L:·-·:--.. . ----: . ---------- ----- .~z-~-:--·------r~-:-:--·:c~~---.......-~- ------:-·:----~----:- -- :+--·-·____.,_,:_____:~_~--:---·-:.-~- --:~-~~~:~;:;-~,.--~:':-~--; ~~=--:~:;--<?:
...
-
·-·:·.
····... ·:
·.
.
-.
..
~--
..
. : ~·
:"
.
·-
..
_.·
".
;
I
APPENDIX D
CLUSTERS OF
CORRELATJDHS BET~EEN LIFO AND
OTHlk FERSOfiALITY ~fh~U~ES
S!Gn!FICA~T
u ro
OTHER
SPt
,---
PrRSONf..l!TY
___ _Jilh~U~IS~----
ll FO
CT+
(r "
Control e•pressed
wa~tcd"
Ac • Affection expressed
1-w = Affc(tion
~f'-
-.23
-.22
-.34
.33
l!
FO
r---
CS+
fJRO- B (r;<lGC)
"le • Inclusion o:pressed
lw = Inclusion ~ant~d
Cw • Control
u ro
UFO
-.:>8
• ~1
-.40
.4 s
LT-
-. 37
.23
l:l!DU: (ll•75)
ferhanicll
(c.-nputa t i onol
.30
.43
Arthtic
Literary
Hus ica 1
Socia 1 Service
Clerical
f (\R!l -
~! I.P-':f ~.,,,~I
-.25
uro
AD-
..
~
• .cu
-.31
.2J
-.3:>
.2::
.30
SciPnl ific
Persuasive
~
CS-
.4 9
-.3 6
-.3S
~."ar.ted
uro
-. 3·1
.4 7
-.39
""
I.
-.29
31
-.34
Uf:::?:·)
Orivc t [ncrsy (G)
Self-P.estrair.t (R)
Social l'orr.iunce (II}
Soci~rility (S}
J":-not~0!'"•?1 ~.t~~~lit~:(L)
-.35
.45
-.31
.42
.41
rrctd()':l frcrc. Senst.:ivity{O)
-.50
I
.4 ~
.4 1
-.3H
.
A!)neablen~ss {F)
Suieo~so·ir.dcr.r.ess
.4 0
-.3&
-.41
-.3 4
(T)
Confidence in ft,ople {P)
ALLPORT· VERr;Oil
(SlUDY OF VALUES)(N•75)
lheon•t i ca 1 "R"
£c<;no~ic
-.30
'1 S11
Social "X"
Powet' "Y 11
Spiritua 1 ''Z''
"-,
M.t1.f'.J. ("0") (N=75)
.3 1
-
/.esthetic "T"
-.3}
.36
.30
.30
• 34
-.32
.3 6
-.30
.3
:...
-----
l
----------~,
.
.
i
!·
"'
'
-"
38
APPENDIX E
Table I.
Summary of Test Population Source
Hospital
Governing
Authority
How Many Health Administrators
Used From a Hospital
With This Governing Authority
State of California
5
Federal Government
1
Military
2
County of Los Angeles
1
Religious
2
Community
1
Proprietary
2
(Total Number of
Health Administrators
Used ih Survey:
14)
!...._.
39
40
Table II.
Mean Score
Range
Explanation of the Likert Organizational
Profile Survey Leadership Style Score Ranges
Prevalent Form of Self-Perceived Leadership
0-1
Authoritative (totally non-supportive)
1-2
Benevolent Authoritative (non-supportive)
2-3
Consultative to Supportive
3-4
Supportive
..
• ,
~
Table III.
'\
I
·~
•
Administrator
Number
Likert
Score
LIFO S/G
1
2.5
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.8
2
2.0
2.0
2.8
2.6
2.3
3
3.2
2.7
2.0
3.3
3.3
4
2.8
3.1
2.7
1.8
2.3
.5
2.2
2.7
2.2
1.4
2.2
6
3.2
3.0
2.6
2.4
1.9
7
2.9
3.0
3.0
2.7
2.4
8
3.0
3.1
2.1
2.6
"2. 3
9
2.6
3.0
2.1
2.9
2.6
2.1
3.2
: 2. 7
.·'
·.: :.
'.!
'
..
;
.. "•i
,,.
-·:.·,,
1....
•'.
,·''
)
.\-:
_:,·
'
··.-·.
~·: ~::-··'
~·· '
'
~...
I
··.·.·
. ..
...
-~.
.'
'·
.-:;
:~
;•
;<_11
,·· ...
\,
·.:~;: .. 12
.:::.i ·~.: .. 13
~·.
.
.
. ,.
.
..
;
. ·. :..
. ;":·
. ~ ·.•·
2.6
2.8
3.2
3.0
2.2
1.9
2.3
3.1
.'
2.3
.\ ~~
1.2
. ' -~
.....
2.8
......
~
. 2.4
2.7·
.•,
... ·
·
•,
··~~-:--:" ~
~55
2.5
.
";
.
~.
.. .
..
3. 2"
•\
~18
2.6
!
~ ·2. 2 .
'2. 7
2. 7.
(
.\
,• ....
·,·
..
~
j
1'
2.8
\;
2. 5
l,
.36
-.08
I
.)
.~ : .
I
(-)
{/
'·', ~
., ;
·.· .....
..
··
....
J·:
·
~ '
2. 7.
~
' i·.;~.
·,d
'
·,,,
·~ . .'. :··
,••
LIFO C/T
~
2.9
.....
. :"i"
..
.,..
·..
Mean·
~-
...:.-.-: ~:.
)
:~
.t-:
2.8
·I ...
•\ ';! :- ',
'
(
~
2.9
3.0
'
:..· .' . ' ... ~
-~:
·.:•
(-)
. /'
·,.'·,•
··.-
~
~
.••'
<14
,1, ,,
LIFO C/T
LIFO S/G
)
"•
......
, ·'
.\·.
::;
,.;
'·
'.l ·.
•.'_.:,
.~ .
'.
·,
,..
'·10
.
'•,
(
:-;
.•'
~::
Tabulation of the Likert Org~nizational Profile Survey Leadership Style Scores
With the Life Orientations Survey Supporting-Giving (S/G) and Controlling-Taking
(C/T) Scores (correlation and mean values included)
'
'•
-~i
'
.·,...
..'
'i
)'
'
j• • '
),
..
·,
'
.
,•
·-----------
__________
,J:::.
,..,
-·~·'
,._ ...... ..._ ___ _,_,_
1-'
~-
•.
I
-:;.
Table IV.
Tabulation of the Likert Org~nizati•.;nal Profile Survey Leadership Style Scores
With the Life Orientations Survey tv3.apting-Dealing (A/D) and Conserving-Holding
(C/H) Scores (correlation and mean values included)
.•
';
Administrator
Number
.. :·
1
Likert
Score
!uiFO C/H
( )
!:.
'"i.'
•'
i
:..::~
( l
!:.
2.5
2.8
2.6
1.6
1.8
2
2.0
1.9
2.4
3.5
2.4
3
3.2
2.1
2.3
1.9
2.0
...
4
2.8
3.2
2.i
1.9
2.3
1':
·s
2.2
3.7
3.4
2.1
2.1
6
3.2
2.0
2.7
2.6.
2:9
7
2;9
2.7
1.7
2.1
.1:7
2.6
2 .,8
. 2. 6
2.8
3.4
1.3
2.1
2.6
2.2
.!
'
. LIFO A/D
(-)
LIFO A/D
' '!:.
1
·..
I
LIFO C/H
_l:)_
•
r.;
.:
-~
2.4
r.
8
.. .
9. :··
....·.·
' ''/.·-.
~
3.0
2.7
3.0
2.6
2.2
1.7
I
'I
!:.
..~-
'\
'
.'·
... ,.-~
·.·,··
;:.
·.' .
!-•
-~ ....;__
...
~~
.·
.....
......,.:
l··
~.~~
j"
t
..
1·.i
.,
::
·2.L
' .11
3.2
2.8
2.4
·.' ...
·'·
·.. '.
-~ ·:~
1.8
·'
-~-
;:.
2.6
12
2.2
2. 7
:13
3.1
3.1
•,
·'·
·'tr
10
. '-~ .
.
;.
__
2.6
14
3.3
;·
·,·
2.:3
2.6
2.7
';.'
1·/,.,
·'·~·: : ·
"~
2.7
<Mean
·.
.
<·:
.
:\::·:_.·.·
~
2.6
.. ! .••
~
-0.0€
2.5
~ ~
~;
.:
···
•..
1.9
i
1.8
·;
-~
"''·~·
.·:,
·.'
-0~22 ;,
-:.;'
~ ~
'
·---~·---··
...~--------
...~~
--~
·----·-
-~-
......,
.. -
1
-0.56 .
:
2.4
~
.14
: .,'';
)
--~-
,'~
.
...
.2 .1
-~·
2.2
'
,.
2.2
I'
,·.
.('··~.,._
·.
• •• : ,1.
::.
.:;·
.-_:_··
: ~ .'.
(
•.·
. _1,
,
'·.,I
}
'
·. ~:
.,
;
~
N
,.
•,·
•,
..
..
'•
•.
/
·Table
v.·
1:'
..
Tabulation of the Neal Preferr~d ·value Scores With the Life Orientations
Supporting-Giving (S/G) and c'ontrolJ ing-Taking (C/T) Scores (correlation and mean
values included)
·
:
Neal
Score
.LIFO S/G
l
2.5
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.8
2
2.5
2.0
2.8
2.6
2.3
3
2.5
2.7
2.0
3. 3 •
3.3
4
2.0
3.1
2.7
1.8
5
2.0
2.7
2.2
1.4
2.2
6
3.0
3.0
2.6
2.4
1.9
7
3.6
3.0
3.0
2.7
2.4
·j·.···
8
3.6
3.1
2.1
··.··
....
9
2.7
3.0
2.9
!
-~
.. Ad.'llinis tra tor
Number
.
,.
....
;.,
; .':' :~·
•,.•
····;
i
·,.
,!
:I;
:: ••'
:· r-.l·~-~
·,">;•
(·~-
·.l·/·~
.•'
'•·I,
.
t
~
; t
•
10
2.5
2.8
2.3
11
2.3
3.0
2.8
12 :.· .
..... ·
. . : 13
·.::
,., ·. ·:,(
14
~..
. .;·· ·.Mean
..,.
1.9
2.6
2. 3 ..
• '3.6
3.0
'2. 7
2.7
•.'
:~-~
. ' I ~ ,
··''·
2 .·6
·,'
LIFO C/T
!:.
\· __l::2
~
.
!:.
•\
2.3
.
i·
.. ::·
2.3
·\
2.1
i
2.9
I
:I
"
):
. .~
,l
.,
2'.6
.2. 7
j'
'·
'2.7
'l
3. 2
i
::- . . 2.2
l
' J '· 2. 8
2.6
. ~ 28 l(' ··..· .2.5
2.9
2.8
2.7
···.
·····•
I
;
2.s·
0.31.
~,.
!
t'
'
'.·
' :.. . 04
·~
,... ~
~:'-'.
·...:
,.".:
''(
...
. -~·
2.4
'
···.·.
(
',.•,
;
:~
·.;
,·.
.. :'·
.• ..
-·. ~-~
.a
:,.
. f
-~.... ' .·.:
l
::~
''
'.'
..
,'~
·'
2.1
3.2
1·2
-"
··...
..~,:
)
'~-~
(I
··.. ·
~: ; ·_{.
..
,i . '
·_:f
· ..;,,-·
( ' ~ ~.
2.5
:::·
~·
;~ •• ~ ~· '. ;;
.(
' f
......
'
,,:•
',·,.
1:.;'
•, :·:
.. ..
I
LIFO C/T
!:.
.,;
! ...:
:.·:-
LIFC' S/G
___i: •.L_
!:.
;·.
:. ~
• I
( )
i·'
~.
..
·---.·······-
.
.
··-· i
i,..
:
~
w
-~------
-------- -----·-··
....
,
~-- --~---
.....-
.....
·-·
............. -··'
'
..... -
-.~·
.
.4'
_;·
~
~-
!I
..
'
~~
,,;
.. :·:,
I
2.6
1.6
1.8
2
2.5
1.9
2.4
3.5
2.4
3
2.5
2.1
2.3
1.9
2.0
4.
2.0
3.2
2-7
1.9
2.3
5
2.0
3.7
3.4
2.1
2.1
6
3.0
2.0
2.7
2.6
7
3.6
2.7
2.4
3.6
2.7
3.0
2.7
2.2
1.7
·•.:.
..
·
'·
•.1.'
"',.,
:
;.,
.,
:i;;.
::·..
:,.·,
,,.·
,.
.
,..
--·
~-.
'1.:.\•
l.
,·.··
...
·~·/·
...
10
2.5
1,8
'11
2.3
2.8
12
2.5
2.7
2.6
3.1
3.6
2.6
-::.·._ . 13
..
..•..
14
... ! ' '
!:
·..
'•.
..
• ~.
·,>Mean
.)·..f_-::.·:
I'
'i
:~·'-
.......
.... . .·J <·.
.. r "'~. ~ ::.
,.
'
'
,·
·.-.·
..··,
. ·-,
...
~.·~-~~
,...,
.,.,
' '.
·2.6
.,
2.8
,·,
..
·':
. ·~ 07
'•
·· ... ,
_,.:
·•·.
.·.
,.~
.... ,. ..<
~:
·.:·,
:·~
.:·:
. '·:{
:/
..·
.,
., .. ·
..,
~~
2.1
2.6.
·2.2
2.2
•'
:. ·.~
,,
.. ··
1.3
'.
~
. ..:.
,.
~
.: :;
i:.'.: ~
.r
2 2
\
o
'I
"
·,
..
l. •'·. 2 ~ 1
'·
1
'
;.. .1·7 l'
,. :2. 3
.:
1~
·''.l
~
3.4
,1.8
~~~ ·':
2.6
2.6
;
2.8
,'• ..... 1. 9
·)
..:.·
; .
I'{
-.25
~
2.6
;._·:;-
2 .. 7
!:
2.9
I·
1 .. 7
,•::
2 8
•'.
.
·.;
..''
3 -'3
l:.L
2.1
J
2-4
LIFO A/D
!:
1.7
··,·
2.1
....
( )
'!:
•
',!
2.7
LIFO A/D
_J~:)__
··,
.
::.··
'•
_u
.· .. ·.
'
...
'
•:'.
....
..
·... ·
·:
•.
9
·
· ..
LIFO C/H
2.8
8
.·:.,
~-~---
2.5
'
'.·.·
-- ··- -· -···-··--·--..
1
.
'•! •.
.
.LIFO C/H
,,
'• .·
___,
Neal
Score
·l
.
"
Administrator
Number
i
! ..
..... ··--·-
Tabulation of the Neal l?refqrred Value Scores 'l'i'i th the Life Orientations
Adapting-Dealing (A/D) and Co~scrving-Holding (C/H) Scores (correlation and mean
values included)
. Table VI.
.,,.i'.
'·
•.
•.,
,'1
'.09.
' ..
l·.
r
)
:·(.
II
l· •:
\.
.·
.
,•,'
·,'·,·
,•
~
'
~
.t:-·
45
Table VII.
Tabulation of the Neal Preferred Value Scores
With the Likert Organizational Profile Survey
Leadership Style Scores
Administrator
Number
Likert
Score
Neal
Score
1
2.5
2.5
2
2.0
2.5
3
3.2
2.5
4
2.8
2.0
5
2.2
2.0
6
3.2
3.0
7
2.9
3.6
8
·3. 0
3.6
9
2.6
2.7
10
2.6
2.5
11
3.2
2.3
12
2.2
2.5
I
13
3.1
2.6
I
14
2.6
3.6
Mean
2.7
2.7
\\
!
I
I
r
t
.26
i
I'.
I
. L____ -.. -------··-----·······-··· ········ ........ -----. .····· ----- .... -- --------------·-------·- .--··---.. --- ---....... ·- . ----- -" --......... ---- . --------... ····-. . .----· .... .. . "
46
~·able
J~cvels
Summary of Correlation Values Nith
of Significance
Correlated
\'lith
£
Level
of
Significance
(-I:)
Likert
.55
95
LIFO Supporting-Giving (-)
Likert
.18
Insignificant
(~·)
Likert
• 36
Insignificant
·LIFO Controlling-Taking·(-)
Likert
.08
Irisignificant
LIFO Conserving-Holding (+)
Likert
. -.06
Insignificant
LIFO Conserving-Holding (-)
Likert
-.22
Insignificant
LIFO T•:aapting-Dealing (+)
Likert
-.56
95
J,IFO hdapti~g-Dealing (-)
Likert
.14
Insi9nificant
LIFO Supporting-Giving (+)
Neal
.31
Insignificant
J,IFO
,-.·
~:.
VIII.
Support~ng-Giving
LIFO Controlling-Taking_
-· ·- -.-. ---- --
l.
.
.06 ·-· It1signiflcant ''
:LIFO Supporting-Giving (-)
Neal
:LIFO Controlling-Taking (+)
Neal
.28
:LIFO Controlling-Taking(-)
Neal
-.04
lns_i
•LIFO Conserving-Holding (+)
Neal
-.25
Insignificant
\l,IFD ConsPrving-Holding ( -)
Neal
.07
Ins isn.'d. .)_can l
LIFO Adapting-Deoling (+)
Neal
-.17
.Insignificant
J,IFO Adapting-Dealing (-)
Neal
.09
__ Insignificant
Likert Supportive Leadership Style
Neal
.26
Insignificant
Insignificant
~n:i
f-1
('"?._~1_.-
-·;-
·.-{
.. ·
~" ':
.-
. -
--~.
:- - .;· f -:;.~•- ~--
:·
.1
-.-.--.. ..
: t
.·_;_.
'
·.•_._.-
...
_
-
·
-'·i; ... --
... ·_
~·-
...-
~-
/·" ·-
.
,. __ .... _.
. ~
·-- ..
•· •• !·
- :_-: ~ ........ :-.~·... -..
/.,.;
-..·...;.:.
~---