2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Manifest Needs and Leadership in Nascent Entrepreneurs
Collin Rhoade, Abigail Erickson, Katie Wolfe,
Dr. Shawn M. Carraher &Dr, Philip Millage
Indiana Wesleyan University
Author Note
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to:
Collin Rhoade, 2626 Greenleaf blvd., Elkhart, IN 46514
Contact: crhoade1@gmail.com or shawncarraher@yahoo.com
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
0
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Manifest Needs and Leadership in Nascent Entrepreneurs
Abstract
At present, leadership within entrepreneurship is an increasingly popular topic of
discussion among large corporations, small businesses, and business analysts. Although many
psychological correlations between personality and leadership style have been made, continued
study in this area allows for more complete understanding of the causes and effects of leadership.
The purpose of this study is to identify whether a correlation exists between motivational needs
of young entrepreneurs, based on scores on the Manifest Needs Questionnaire (Steer and
Braumstein. 1976) and leadership styles, based on scores on Fiedler’s Least Preferred Co-worker
(LPC) Scale test (Fiedler 1967). Correlation results affirmed that both the manifest needs for
achievement and for affiliation are significantly correlated to the Least Preferred Co-worker
Scale. In addition, our data supported that the manifest need for power was extremely correlated
to the need for achievement. The results of this study allow employees, managers, and other
entrepreneurs to better understand how personality will affect an entrepreneur’s leadership style.
An organization’s climate, day-to-day operations, and the expectations of employees will all be
affected by this correlation discovered in this study. Future research on this topic includes using
other leadership assessments, as well as expanding this study to a broader pool of subjects or
non-entrepreneurial subjects.
Introduction
Why is Leadership Important?
In some respects, the study of leadership, is an area of thought and analysis that is
continuing to be developed and has large potential to grow according to the advances in
psychology. Psychological studies have allowed researchers to explore the causes and effects in
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
1
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
leadership in the past decade or two, but a wealth of knowledge on this topic still has yet to be
studied.The psychology behind individuals and the collective group, and how they respond to
different aspects of leadership is dynamic. The psychology can help an analyst identify the
outcomes of a group’s functionality and the probability of success or failure of achieving goals
that have been set. When a person then attempts to combine the complex world of business and
how the concept of leadership within business affects outcomes and situations, this study gets
even more complex and interesting. In many stories of history, we attribute the success or failure
of a business or organization to the actions, choices, and attitudes of that business or
organization’s leader.
Researchers have attempted to isolate a variety of aspects of leadership in order to study
their effects on businesses. In the past, studies have attempted to identify the idealized traits of an
entrepreneur or manager; more recently, collective leadership and different leadership
perceptions have been analyzed in the choices that businesses make. Types of leadership styles
also play a big role in the studies that are currently being done. One such study involves vertical
and shared leadership, and the mentalities and perceptions that surround a leader within an
organization. The actions and behaviors of an influential person within an organization may have
unquantifiable influence on the outcomes within the organization.
Previous Research – Leadership
Studies that analyze the differences between transactional and transformational
leadership and how these leadership styles affect the outcomes of business are central to
leadership and business research. In a study by Ensley, Pierce, and Hmieleski, empirical data
supported that environmental dynamism was a distinguishing factor in whether transformational
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
2
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
or transactional leadership was most effective in an organization (Ensley, Pierce, and Hmieleski
2006). Empirical data from specific industries, such as the construction industry, has been used
to analyze if “leader effectiveness,” “extra effort by employees,” and an “employee’s”
satisfaction with leaders corresponds with transformational and transactional leadership (Chan
and Chan 2005). Chan concluded that transformational and transactional leadership are
complimentary to one another. Prominent or usual behaviors correlated to either transformational
or transactional leadership were also identified in this study.
In a subsequent study, Ensley, Pierce and Hmieleski analyzed vertical and shared
leadership, the concept of hierarchical leadership, compared to leadership based on collective
knowledge of several individuals in relation to new venture growth (Ensley, Hmieleski and
Pearce 2006). Four types of leadership were used in correlation with vertical and shared
leadership including directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering (Ensley,
Hmieleski, and Pearce, 2006). Although the data did not affirm that all types of vertical
leadership were positively correlated to new venture growth, the data did affirm that all four
types of shared leadership could be positively correlated to new venture growth (Ensley,
Hmieleski, and Pearce 2006).
Previous Research - Manifest Needs
Henry Murray’s text Explorations in Personality covers an extremely wide variety of
proposals and theories on how to analyze personality. The text also describes a plethora of
factors that may play a role in determining personality and behavioral reactions. Murray states in
this text that, “Man is to-day's great problem. What can we know about him and how can it be
said in words that have clear meaning?... The point of view adopted in this book is that
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
3
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
personalities constitute the subject matter of psychology, the life history of a single man being
the unit with which this discipline has to deal,”(Murray 1938). An abundance of insight stemmed
from this study and the examination of personality including theManifest Needs theory. Murray
described Manifest needs as overt needs, or needs that are reflected through actions, choices, or
behaviors (Murray1938). Out of the forty-four variables that Murray studied in relation to
personality, twenty-two of them were considered Manifest Needs (Murray 1938). Today we
typically refer to three or four of the manifest needs that Murray found through his analysis.
Those needs are the need for dominance or power, achievement, affiliation, and autonomy. Some
of the manifest needs that are not mentioned as often include the need for abasement,
defendance, harmavoidance, nurturance, and sex, just to name a few (Murray 1938).
Steer and Braunstein developed the Manifest Needs Questionnaire, which measures the
four needs of power, achievement, affiliation, and autonomy. These are intrinsic in each person
at different levels and are based off of Murray’s Personology Theory (Williams and Woodward
1980). The need for power is defined as the “desire for control over one’s environment; the need
for achievement is the desire to excel; need for autonomy is the desire to be independent,”
(Fagenson 1992). The need for affiliation reflects an individual’s desire to associate oneself with
bigger group or cause. Many aspects of an organization, specifically the psychological climate,
have been analyzed in an attempt to find correlations with the Manifest Needs of leaders present
in an organization (Ward 1980). Correlations of manifest needs to goal commitment,
management potential, job performance, and satisfaction with managers have all been made with
the support of empirical data in various studies (Ward 1980).
Specific needs have been isolated and studied in correlation to a variety of factors. For
example, those who are motivated by the need for achievement may respond best to either
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
4
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
positive motivation or negative motivation (Slade and Rush 1991). This is also correlated to the
ideal task difficulty a person will take on. Positively motivated people with the need for
achievement have been found to take on tasks with medium difficulty, where as negatively
motivated people with the need for achievement were found to be more likely to take on either
very easy or very difficult tasks (Slade and Rush 1991). The need for achievement and
autonomy have been related to worker performance based upon worker attributes including skill
variety, task identity, task significance, and feedback. (Orpen 1985).
Previous Research - Least Preferred Co-worker Scale
The Contingency Model compares leadership styles to leadership effectiveness. Part of
this Contingency Model is the Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC), which assesses leadership
styles (Schriesheim, Tepper and Tretault 1994). According to the Contingency Theory, the
leader’s situational control is what moderates the relationship between leadership style and
leadership effectiveness (Fiedler & Garcia, 1987). A high LPC score reflects a leader who is
primarily motivated to seek relationship with a group, while a low LPC score leader will be task
oriented and motivated by accomplishment of tasks (Theodory 1981). High LPC’s work well in
moderate situations, but if they are placed in an extremely favorable situation or extremely
unfavorable situation, they will tend to become more task oriented. Low LPC’s, who work will
in either very favorable or unfavorable situations, will tend to become more relational in
moderate situations (Theodory 1981). Another theme of study has been varying levels of esteem
for an individual’s least preferred co-worker; a study hypothesized that those with low LPC
scores would have more extreme scores, both positive and negative, compared to those with a
high LPC score (Rice, Seaman, and Garvin 1978).
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
5
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
In general, some experts question the legitimacy of the Fiedler’s Least Preferred CoWorker scale and the Contingency Model. Others seem to be of the opinion that it is just not
fully understood and as a result the potential explanatory power of the test is not being used.
Many believe that additional research needs to be done to fully understand or affirm the validity
of the theory and the scale. As a result, there has been quite a bit of additional research done
pertaining to Fiedler’s research in an attempt to connect it with a variety of independent and
dependent of variables. Much of the research has been done in the late 70’s through the 80’s.
However, experts continue to use Fiedler’s model today to examine leadership styles.
Methods
Data/Sample
The data that was analyzed contained a total of 523 subjects. These subjects were
entrepreneurs within a variety of fields.Each subject was taking a classfrom Dr. Shawn Carraher,
and completedboth the Manifest Needs Questionnaire and the Least Preferred Co-worker scale
during the time enrolled in the class. Of the 523 subjects, 290 were males, 231 were females, and
two subjects did not specify their sex. The mean age of the entrepreneurs was 23 years old.
Results on the Least Preferred Co-worker scale ranged from a minimum of 18, representing a
leader who is very task oriented, to 144, representing a leader who is very relationship oriented.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
6
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Table 1 – Regression Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
73.682
12.815
NeedforAch
-9.798
2.401
NeedforAff
4.135
NeedforAut
NeedforPower
Model
1
t
Sig.
5.750
.000
-.198
-4.080
.000
1.849
.098
2.237
.026
-1.496
1.992
-.033
-.751
.453
4.872
1.759
.134
2.770
.006
a. Dependent Variable: lpctot R = .216 R2=.047 F = 6.316 Sig. = .0000001
Correlations
NeedforAch NeedforAff NeedforAut NeedforPower lpctot
NeedforAch
Pearson Correlation 1
-.140**
-.013
.452**
-.151**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.001
.765
.000
.001
523
523
N
NeedforAff
NeedforAut
523
Pearson Correlation -.140
Sig. (2-tailed)
.001
N
523
1
-.122
523
Pearson Correlation -.013
-.122
Sig. (2-tailed)
.765
.005
N
523
NeedforPower Pearson Correlation .452
lpctot
**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
N
523
**
523
**
Pearson Correlation -.151
-.099
*
.024
.117
-.099
**
519
*
.117**
.005
.024
.008
523
523
519
1
.067
-.034
.124
.445
523
523
519
.067
1
.033
.124
523
**
523
**
.455
523
523
519
-.034
.033
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
.001
.008
.445
.455
N
519
519
519
519
519
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
7
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Results/Analysis
Regression analysis supported that approximately 5% of the variance between the
Manifest Needs Questionnaire and Least Preferred Co-worker scale could be explained
statistically. The regression analysis supported that the correlations within the study were
significant up to the 1x(10^-7) level. The constant or predictor variables in the study were the
scores from the Manifest Needs Questionnaire, including need for power, autonomy, affirmation,
and achievement. The dependent variable was the Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale. Need for
achievement was highly correlated to lower LPC scores. Logically this result is sound. because
those who are motivated by achievement will most likely be task oriented in order to get a
greater amount of tasks accomplished, thus feeling a sense of achievement. Need for affirmation
was significant to higher LPC scores. This makes logical sense because a person who is
motivated by or has a need for affirmation from others will most likely be relationship focused.
In addition to these variables, need for power was found to be statistically significant because it
acted as a suppressor variable in the regression analysis. Need for power is not statistically
significant with the Least Preferred Co-worker scale, however, it is statistically significant in
correlation with need for achievement. The need for autonomy does not show any significant
correlations to the Least Preferred Co-worker Scale.
Discussion
The presence of a suppressor variable in the results of the data makes this study an
interesting one. The high levels of significance in the correlations in the need for achievement
and need for affirmation are logical, but the empirical data that supports this relationship give the
correlation stronger support than solely logical assumption. It is also interesting that Steer and
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
8
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Braunstein’s Manifest Needs Questionnaire does not explain a large percent of the variance in
Fiedler’s Least Preferred Co-worker Scale. In the past, other articles have mentioned that
Fiedler’s LPC scale does not correlate with any other psychological analysis. Specifically,
Sashkin, Taylor, and Tripathi bring this issue up as a critique of Fiedler’s LPC scale in one of
their studies (Shaskin, Tayler, and Tripathi 1974). Although through statistical analysis, the data
does support that there are some correlations between certain manifest needs and the LPC scale,
Murray’s Manifest Needs can explain only five percent of the variance in the LPC
scale.Unfortunately, subsequent studies since this commentary on the LPC scale has not
provided many gains in finding correlations between other assessments and the LPC
scale.According to our results it seems the Manifest Needs has not provided a significant
breakthrough in the research of the LPC scale.
Suggestions For Future Research
There are several areas of additional research that can be continued as a result of this
study. The first is continuing research to find other leadership evaluations that Murray’s Manifest
Needs Assessment may explain a larger percent of the variance and have more significant
correlation to. The second area of study is finding additional personality or leadership
assessments in an attempt to correlate it to the LPC scale.Increased data on the LPC scale will
ultimately help to better understand what the LPC scale predicts with the most accuracy. The
thirdsuggestion for future research is to run another test correlating Manifest Needs to the LPC
scale, but to do the statistical analysis with a different pool of subjects. The fourth area of
research is a study on the high correlation between need for power and need for achievement and
what that means for further research with Manifest Needs assessments.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
9
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
The first area of additional research is the opportunity of comparing other leadership
evaluations with manifest needs assessments. The Least Preferred Co-worker scale is just one
assessment of leadership ability. Our results do not show that Manifest Needs explains a large
amount of the variance in the LPC scale. However, Manifest Needs may correlate more
significantly and explain more of the variance in leadership assessments that assess different
aspects of leadership.
A new assessment for studying leadership was recently developed in 2010 by Singh and
Jampel; it analyzes leadership capabilities on a grid called leadership flexibility space (Singh and
Jampel 2010). The test analyzes two basic parameters: “decisions making capability” and
“information input by group during decision making” (Singh and Jampel 2010). The results
categorize leaders in five different leadership styles, including consultive autocrats, complete
autocrats, consensus managers, impoverished managers, and active managers. Two scales, a Dscale which rates “leadership and decision” making style and an I-scale which rates the “degree
of group information input”, determines the categories in which the leaders are placed. Because
this is a recently developed test, it is apparent that no one has attempted to correlate this
leadership assessment with Murray’s Manifest Needs. The study specifically tested engineer
project managers; testing a pool of entrepreneurs could produce much different results on types
of leadership.
In addition, a study correlating theleadership flexibility space analysis to the LPC scale
may shed light on some of the interpretations of results from the LPC scale. As the Leadership
Flexibility Space assessment is used more prominently to assess leadership styles, correlations
between the LPC and Leadership Flexibility Space would give researchers the opportunity to
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
10
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
further understand other statically supported leadership aspects that correlate to low or high LPC
scores. Further support and statistical research to support the credibility of the Leadership
Flexibility Space assessment may need to be done in order for it to support the LPC scale if
certain correlations were found.
A leadership assessment that determines Servant Leadership called the Organizational
Leadership Assessment (OLA) developed in 1999 by J. Laub has been proven to help increase
effectiveness of teams (Irving 2008). Laub’s OLA uses six variables to characterize servant
leadership, including valuing others, developing people, building community, displaying
authenticity, providing leadership, and sharing leadership (Irving 2008). Using the OLA and a
team effectiveness questionnaire (TEQ), J. Laub was able to statistically prove increased servant
leadership tendencies were correlated to higher levels of team effectiveness (Irving 2008). Doing
statistical analysis to identify whether or not Manifest Needs correlates to the OLA results would
provide another aspect of how Manifest Needs affect leadership. If certain Manifest needs
correlated to positive or negative OLA results and the results are significantly statistic, we can
then say that Manifest needs indirectly affects team effectiveness.
The second area of further study revolves around the pursuit to further explain the
predictions that the LPC scale can make. Many of the implications of a person’s LPC score have
not yet been identified. This study linked LPC scores to the Manifest Needs, however, not much
of the variance of the LPC scores could be explained. A way to further this research would be to
compare Fiedler’s LPC scale with the Myers Briggs Personality Type Indicator test in order to
analyze how that personality assessment plays a role in determining leadership style. The Myers
Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) test examines a person’s preferences and determines the
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
11
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
personality type of that person. Specifically a study that statically analyzed the correlations
between the sixteen different MBTI and LPC scale results would further our knowledge of the
LPC scale.
There is also a potential to research the effects a person’s LPC scores may have on the
psychological climate of an organization. A previous study was conducted attempting to find a
relation between the Manifest Needs and psychological climate and it was found that there was
not a strong correlation between the two (Ward 1998). It may be possible that LPC scores
correlate with psychological climate. Previously a study was conducted correlating the LPC
scale and cognitive complexity using a sample of entrepreneurs in the work force (Carraher
2002). Although the study resulted in no overwhelming data that supported a strong correlation
between these two assessments, it is possible that the results of this test may have been different
if the sample of nascent entrepreneurs had been used.
A third suggestion for future research would be to use a subject pool other than young
entrepreneurs. A suggested group could be a group of typical employees. The purpose of the
study would be to examine whether or not the correlation between manifest needs and LPC
scores remained the same or if it proved to be stronger or weaker. Another suggested group of
participants could be a group of older entrepreneurs who have years of experience or
entrepreneurs who do not possess a formal education. Different perspectives and mindsets of
participants of these tests would affect the correlations that we see. For instance, nonentrepreneurial participants who do not show a strong inclination toward leadership may not
have a strong correlation of need for achievement and task oriented leadership style. This could
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
12
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
be due to the fact that non-entrepreneurial people are not necessarily in a position of leadership,
and the test may represent their task or relational orientation in a different way.
The fourth area of further research is analyzing the correlation between the need for
power and the need for affiliation. Possible avenues of additional research on this correlation
could involve looking at a variety of different subject pools. Because the pool from which the
data came from contained all young entrepreneurs, this may have affected the strength of this
correlation. The correlation between these two manifest needs may be different if the pool of
data came from people of a variety of ages and occupations. Results may also be different if the
pool was made up entirely of entrepreneurs, but the ages were varied. Looking at past research
and comparing their data pool with their data on the correlation between the need for power and
need for affiliation would be one way to asses whether this correlation is present in most studies
involving manifest needs, or if it has only shown up in our study.
Implications for Previous Research
Previously, many studies have been conducted studying the Manifest Needs
Questionnaire. Ward (1998) studied the Manifest Needs and the effect they had on
psychological climate in an organization and he found that the two did not have a significant
correlation to one another. Several studies have also been conducted using the LPC scale. In
one such study, Carraher (2002) found that there was a strong relation between how a person
scored on the LPC scale and that person’s cognitive complexity. However, this study is the first
to compare Manifest Needs to the LPC scale. The results of this study do not conflict with any
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
13
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
previous research. The study supported that a person’s scores in need for achievement and need
for affiliation can predict a person’s LPC score.
Implications for Business Practice
Because the level of variance explained from the study is relatively low, it is difficult to
say that our data will be upheld in all cases. However, assuming the variables and the data will
hold true in a business environment, the two correlated manifest needs variables that are
correlated to the LPC scale provide us with some principles by which entrepreneurs and leaders
will be most effective.
Because the data supports that entrepreneurs who are more relational typically possess
the need for affiliation, it is likely that in order for entrepreneurs to feel comfortable and
effective in their work, they will need some aspect of affiliation with the company, their work
team, or some other aspect of the business. This means that in order for the entrepreneur to feel
most comfortable and to feel fulfilled, he or she must feel a connection to the team that he or she
is working with. The entrepreneur must be free to create an environment where these
connections can be made on a variety of levels. In order for intimate relationships to be created
and to feel affiliation, there must be reciprocity from the employees or other managers that the
entrepreneur is working with. This idea can also be applied to the entrepreneur’s relationships
outside of the company he or she is creating and maintaining; these relationships could include
other business contacts, contacts with suppliers, and other people in various positions that would
have some sort of connection to the entrepreneur. If for some reason the entrepreneur is unable to
to establish an intimate relationship, it is likely that he or she will find some other way to fulfill
this need or resort to some other sort of coping mechanism.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
14
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
According to our results, entrepreneurs that possess a strong degree of need for
achievement will likely fall into the task-oriented leadership style. This means that these
entrepreneurs will have high demands on themselves, their employees, and the company as a
whole because of the entrepreneur’s desire for achievement. This mindset includes achieving
long-term goals and short-term deadlines. Entrepreneurs who possess these characteristics will
have a tendency to run their companies or organizations in a way that stresses results and
potentially will be operated in a manner where the ends justify the means. The climate that this
type of entrepreneur will create will be focused on facilitating the individual worker’s
opportunity to complete work with excellence. Ideally the individual functions and roles of teams
and workers will then work together to achieve the goals of the company. Therefore, employees
who are working for an entrepreneur who seem to be very task-oriented should recognize that the
entrepreneur will demand achievement and progress from employees. If employees understand
this at an earlier stage, there’s an opportunity to avoid conflict between what the employee thinks
is expected of him or her and what is actually expected of him or her.
Limitations to Study
Some limitations to this study include the fact that study was completed by
entrepreneurial students who are young. The mean age of participants in the study was 23. It
would be interesting to see how the results of the study differed had it been completed by a wider
range of individuals. An older age group could affect the correlation between the LPC scores and
the need for affirmation. Older entrepreneurs are not as focused on winning others over as much
as being successful. Older individuals have already been through a phase in life where they have
to prove themselves through manifest needs. Another limitation is that the study did not
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
15
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
incorporate non-entrepreneurial subjects.Based on statistical data, we can only say these
correlations hold true to young entrepreneurs. It is possible that the correlation between manifest
needs and LPC scores would be different if applied to this group of people rather than strictly
entrepreneurial students. It would also be interesting to see if the strong correlation between the
need for power and the need for achievement was also present in non-entrepreneurial subjects.
Conclusion
Through the assessment used, our statistical results of this leadership study show that an
entrepreneur’s motivational needs can predict leadership style. Continued discovery in aspects of
personality and leadership will allow us to better understand in what ways leadership style is a
reflection personality and other psychological traits. Combining the studies of personality traits
and leadership will give businessmen and women improved knowledge to allow relationships
between leadership and employees to run more smoothly and be more effective.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
16
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Works Cited
Chan, Antony T. S.; Chan, Edwin H. W. Impact of Perceived Leadership Styles on Work
Outcomes on Work Outcomes: Case of Building Professionals. Journal of
Construction Engineering & Management, Apr2005, Vol. 131 Issue 4, p413-422,
10p
Ensley, Michael D.; Pearce, Craig L.; Hmieleski, Keith M.. The Moderating effect of
environmental dynamism on the relationship between entrepreneur leadership
behavior and new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, Mar2006,
Vol. 21 Issue 2, p243-263, 21p
Ensley, Michael D.; Hmieleski, Keith M.; Pearce, Craig L. The importance of vertical
and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications
for the performance of startups. Leadership Quarterly, Jun2006, Vol. 17 Issue 3,
p217-231, 15p
Fagenson, E. A. (1992) Mentoring-who needs it? a comparison of proteges and
nonproteges needs for power, achievement, affiliation, and autonomy. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 41, 48-60
Fiedler, F. E. A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967
Irving, Justin. Utilizing the Organizational Leadership Assessment as a strategic tool for
increasing the effectiveness of teams within Organizations. Journal of
Management & Marketing Research, Dec2008, Vol. 1, p84-92, 9p, 1 Diagram, 3
Charts, 1 Graph
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford University Press
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
17
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Orpen, Christopher. The Effect of Need for achievement and need for independence on
the relationship between perceived job attributes and managerial satisfaction and
performance. International Journal of Psychology, Apr85, Vol. 20 Issue 2, p207,
13p
Rice, Robert W.; Seaman, F. James; Garvin, Deborah J. AN EMPIRICAL
EXAMINATION OF THE ESTEEM FOR LEASTPREFERRED CO-WORKER
(LPC) CONSTRUCT. Journal of Psychology, Mar78, Vol. 98 Issue 2, p195, 11p
Sashkin, Marshall; Taylor, F. Carter; Tripathi, Rama C.. AN ANALYSIS OF
SITUATIONAL MODERATING EFFECTS ON THE RELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN LEAST PREFERRED CO-WORKER AND OTHER
PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASURES. Journal of Applied Psychology, Dec74, Vol.
59 Issue 6, p731-740, 10p
Schriesheim, Chester A.; Tepper, Bennett J.; Tetrault, Linda A.. Least Preferred CoWorker Score, Situational Control, and Leadership Effectiveness: A MetaAnalysis of Contingency Model Performance Predictions. Journal of Applied
Psychology, Aug94, Vol. 79 Issue 4, p561-573, 13p
Singh, Amarjit; Jampel, Gempo. Leadership Flexibility Space. Journal of Management in
Engineering, Oct2010, Vol. 26 Issue 4, p176-188, 13p, 7 Diagrams, 4 Charts, 10
Graphs
Slade, L. Allen; Rush, Michael C.. Achievement Motivation and the Dynamics of Task
Difficulty Choices. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Jan91, Vol. 60
Issue 1, p165-172, 8p, 4 Charts, 1 Graph
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
18
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Steer, R. M. and D. N. Braumstein. 1976. A behaviorally based measure of manifest
needs in work setting. Journal of Vocational Behavior 9, 251-266.
Theodory, George C.. THE EFFECT OF THE LEAST PREFERRED CO-WORKER
MEASURE ON SCHOOL OUTCOMES IN LEBANON'S EDUCATIONAL
SYSTEM. Journal of Psychology, May81, Vol. 108 Issue 1, p3, 8p
Ward, Edward A. Managerial Power Basses and Subordinates’ manifest needs as
influences on psychological climate. Journal of Business & Psychology,
Spring98, Vol. 12 Issue 3, p361-378, 18p
Williams, Allan P. O.; Woodward, Sally. A note on Steers and Braunstein’s Behaviorally
Based measure of manifest needs. Journal of Occupational Psychology, Sep80,
Vol. 53 Issue 3, p219-221, 3p, 1 Chart
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
19