Leadership style and reward allocation: Does least preferred co-worker scale measure task and relation orientation?

doi:10.1016/0030-5073(83)90146-0

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance

Volume 32, Issue 2, October 1983, Pages 178-197

Organizational Behav...

https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(83)90146-0 Get rights and content

Abstract

In a series of four experiments, low-LPC (Least Preferred Co-worker) and high-LPC subjects received information about job performance, a task variable, and attitude toward management, an interpersonal relation variable, of two members of work groups and distributed a fixed sum of money between them. Two interrelated analyses were performed, one concerning equity theory and the other concerning the meaning of the LPC scale. The assumption of input summation, which has been customary in equity theory, disagreed severely with the data. However, an alternative model based on an assumption of equity integration did remarkably well. The second analysis tested the prediction that low-LPC subjects place greater importance on performance but high-LPC subjects place greater importance on attitude in distribution of rewards. This prediction did not receive any support at all. Findings questioned Fiedler's claim that the LPC scale measures value for task or interpersonal success in group situations. Post hoc analyses disclosed that the high-LPC as compared to low-LPC subjects did better in obeying the precise prescriptions of the equity integration model. It was suggested, therefore, that the LPC scale may possibly be treated as a measure of cognitive complexity.

References (27)

A.S. Ashour
The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: An evaluation
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
(1973)
S.G. Green et al.
Attributional processes of leaders in leader-member interactions
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
(1979)
J.S. Adams
Inequity in social exchange
N.H. Anderson
Equity judgments as information integration
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(1976)
N.H. Anderson
Foundations of information integration theory
(1981)
A.J. Farkas et al.
Multidimensional inputs in equity theory
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(1979)
F.E. Fiedler
A theory of leadership effectiveness
(1967)
F.E. Fiedler
Personality, motivational systems, and the behaviour of high- and low-LPC persons
Human Relations
(1972)
F.E. Fiedler
A rejoinder to Schriesheim and Kerr's premature obituary to the contingency model
F.E. Fiedler et al.
Leadership and effective management
(1974)

U.G. Foa et al.

Differential matching

Behavioral Science

(1971)

W.A. Hill

The LPC leader: A cognitive twist

G.S. Leventhal

Fairness in social relationships

Cited by (13)

Sustaining impactful multidisciplinary contributions over five decades: An interview with Professor Ramadhar Singh, Distinguished University Professor, Amrut Mody School of Management, Ahmedabad University
2017, IIMB Management Review
A professor avows, declares, or professes knowledge of a field. The challenge for most professors lies in continuing to generate relevant knowledge. Of those continuing research, most make impact on their respective disciplines. Ramadhar Singh—an experimental social psychologist and currently, Distinguished University Professor, Amrut Mody School of Management, Ahmedabad University—has been steadily contributing to the advancement of knowledge in psychology and producing multidisciplinary impact over his 49-year career.
By tracing the trajectory of Singh's vast and varied experience, attitude and approach to research, and scholarly output in international publications that have advanced knowledge and found applications from management to biological and social sciences, this interview offer pathways to research scholars for sustained multidisciplinary and impactful research in their careers.
Research productivity in management schools of India during 1968-2015: A directional benefit-of-doubt model analysis
2017, Omega (United Kingdom)
Citation Excerpt :
Second, multiple authorship could alternatively reflect the contributions of the number of students mentored. For example, the present second author, who published single-authored articles in 1970s [33,34], 1980s [35,36] and 1990s [37–39], has recently been publishing articles co-authored with 8–10 colleagues and/or students to train and inspire them in research [40,41]. Thus, assigning an equal importance or weight to the contribution of each individual author might again underestimate the productivity of first author and overestimate the contributions of his co-authors.
Given the growing emphasis on research productivity in management schools of India over the years, the present authors developed a composite indicator (CI) of research productivity, using the directional- benefit-of-doubt (directional-BOD) model. Specifically, we examined overall research productivity of the schools and their respective faculty members during the 1968-69–2014-15 and 2004-05–2014-15 periods. There are four key findings. First, the relative weights of the journal tier, total citations, author h-index, number of papers, impact factor, and journal h-index varied from high to low in order for estimating the CI of a faculty member. Second, both public and private schools were seemingly similar in research productivity. However, faculty members at the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) outperformed those at the Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs). Third, faculty members who had their doctoral degrees from foreign schools were more productive than those who had similar degrees from Indian schools. Among those trained in India, however, alumni of IITs were more productive than those of IIMs. Finally, IIMs at Ahmedabad and Bangalore and the Indian School of Business, Hyderabad have more names than other schools among the list of top 5% researchers during 2004-05–2014-15. These findings indicate a shift in the priority from mere training of managers to generating impactful knowledge by at least two of the three established public schools, and call further attention to improving the quality of doctoral training in India in general and IIMs in particular. Five suggestions for improving research productivity are offered.
Group harmony and interpersonal fairness in reward allocation: On the loci of the moderation effect
1997, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Goals of group harmony and interpersonal fairness in reward allocation are believed to invoke use of the equality and equity rules, respectively. The present research tested the hypotheses that the allocation rule is subtraction, and that the moderation effect of the goal of group harmony arises from response distortions on the reward scale, cognitive distortions of the inputs given, or both. Participants from India divided monetary reward between two persons “fairly” and in a way that can “minimize group conflict.” There were two inputs about each person—effort and performance (Experiment I) or performance over 2 years (Experiments II–IV). Data of majority of the participants conformed to the requirements of the subtractive model. Patterns in the moderation effect across the raw and monotonically rescaled data of individual participants further indicated that the response distortions, input distortions, and response-input distortions are the most, moderate, and least frequent responses to the goal of group harmony, respectively. These findings not only confirm the subtractive model but also offer a new view on the loci of the moderation effect in reward allocation.
Subtractive versus ratio model of "fair" allocation: Can the group level analyses be misleading?
1996, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Two models of equity judgments are ratio and subtraction. Proponents of the former assume a linear relationship between the subjective feelings of equity and their overt expressions; those of the latter assume a monotonic relationship. Consequently, the ratio and subtractive rules are tested with the raw and monotonically rescaled data, respectively. I evaluated these two approaches with managers and students from India. Experiment 1 varied merit and pay of two persons and obtained judgments of difference between unfairness to them. Experiments 2 and 3 manipulated two inputs of two persons and studied “fair” reward for them. I analyzed both the raw and rescaled data at the group and individual levels. The group analyses supported the ratio model; the individual analyses showed that majority was consistent with the subtractive model. Discrepant results from these analyses were due to individual differences in the models employed and use of the response scale. Implications of the findings are discussed for cross-cultural and developmental research in “fair” allocation.
"Fair" Allocations of Pay and Workload: Tests of a Subtractive Model with Nonlinear Judgment Function
1995, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
An allocation is commonly regarded as "fair" if the ratio of outcome of two persons equals the ratio of their respective inputs. In allocation of pay, however, a subtractive model with sigmoidal-shaped judgment function has recently been reported. The present research further tested the plausibility of the subtractive model in allocations of pay and workload. Subjects decided either pay (N = 17) or workload (N = 17) for Person A using three pieces of information - the pay of B and the input of A and B or the workload of B and the pay of A and B. As hypothesized, factorial plots of the input (or pay) of Persons A and B across the low, moderate, and high levels of pay (or workload) of Person B yielded the diverging, slanted barrel, and converging patterns, respectively. Monotonic transformations of the data rescaled nonparallelism to perfect parallelism. The judgment function had a sigmoidal shape characterized by "floor" and "ceiling" effects. These results support the subtractive model but question the ratio model of "fair" allocations.
Prediction of performance using motivation and ability information: New light on integrational capacity and weighting strategies
1994, Cognitive Development
Children between the ages of 4 and 10 predicted exam performance of stimulus students using information about both motivation and ability as well as about either motivation or ability alone. Each kind of information came from two independent sources, and the same set of four- and two-cue descriptions were judged across five trials spaced over three days. Age differences were examined with respect to (a) response consistency across trials of judgments, (b) the number of cues used, and (c) information weighting. Age of the subjects did not emerge as a main determinant of response consistency. More importantly, the inconsistent age effect found with boys diminished considerably by Day 3. Children used all the four given cues from the very beginning. Importance of a cue depended upon what other cues it was paired with. This configural weighting, as reflected in the interaction term, steadily decreased with increasing age. Although predictions were heavily influenced by the recency effects, they conformed to an egalitarian belief that motivation is equally effective with students of low and of high ability. These results portray a very different picture of young children's cognitive capacity than did the previous literature.

View all citing articles on Scopus

^☆: This article is based on a research project, Norms of Reward Allocation, funded by the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India. The author thanks Ajit K. Dalal for his assistance in Experiment 1, Renu Rastogi for running subjects and analyzing data of Experiment 2, Leelavati Krishnan for her assistance in Experiment 3, D. M. Pestonjee and Dalpat Sarupriya for their assistance in selection of subjects fro Experiment 4, Shivganesh Bhargava for checking reliability of the LPC scale and for doing overall analysis for each experiment, Raj K. Kataria, Kamini Pandya, and Madhu Singh for numerous manual calculations, and Rohini Phanse and C. Shyam Prasad for adapting the POLYLIN program for DEC-PDP 11/70 computer. Results of Experiment 1 were presented at the 2nd annual meeting of the Uttar Pradesh Psychological Association held at Lucknow, February 1978. This article has benefited substantially from the thoughtful comments of Norman H. Anderson, Fred E. Fiedler, and two anonymous reviewers.

View full text

Leadership style and reward allocation: Does least preferred co-worker scale measure task and relation orientation?☆

Abstract

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance

Inequity in social exchange

Equity judgments as information integration

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Foundations of information integration theory

Multidimensional inputs in equity theory

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

A theory of leadership effectiveness

Personality, motivational systems, and the behaviour of high- and low-LPC persons

Human Relations

A rejoinder to Schriesheim and Kerr's premature obituary to the contingency model

Leadership and effective management

Differential matching

Behavioral Science

The LPC leader: A cognitive twist

Fairness in social relationships