CULTURE-FREE LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS ... - SSRN papers

0 downloads 0 Views 388KB Size Report
for leadership model, none of the situational variables was found to reverse (1) the positive relationship between leader contingent reward behavior and ...
LEADERSHIPEFFECTIVENESS VERSUS CULTURE-FREE MODERATORSOF LEADERSHIPBEHAVIOR: AN EXTENSIONAND TESTOF KERRAND JERMIER'S "SUBSTITUTESFOR LEADERSHIP"MODELIN TAIWAN Jiing-LihFarh* Louisiana State University PhilipM. Podsakoff** Indiana University Bor-ShiuanCheng*** Fu-Hsin-KongUniversity Abstract.This study was designed to examine whether several situationalvariablesserve as moderatorsof the effects of leader rewardandpunishmentbehaviorsfor Taiwaneseworkers.Contrary to whatwouldbe expectedfromKerrandJermier's(1978)substitutes for leadershipmodel, none of the situationalvariableswas found to reverse (1) the positive relationshipbetween leader contingent reward behaviorand subordinateperformanceor satisfaction,or (2) the generallynegativerelationshipbetweenleadernoncontingent punishmentbehavior and these subordinatecriterion variables. Potentiallimitationsof these findings,and theirimplicationsfor the studyof leadershipeffectivenessacrossculturesare thendiscussed.

Among the most significantdevelopmentsin leadershipresearchin the past decade has been Kerr and Jermier's(1978) suggestionthat certain individual, task, and organizationalvariablesmay "substitutefor"or "neutralize"the effects of hierarchicalleadership,and that these variablesmay be one reason for the difficulty in predictingthe effects of leadershipon subordinateperformance,

* Jiing-LihFarhis an AssistantProfessor of Organizational Behaviorat LouisianaState Ph.D. in Indiana His currentresearch Businessfrom He holdsa University. University. motivation interests focuson leadership, theories,andperformance appraisal. ** PhilipM.Podsakoff of Personnel andOrganizational Behavior isanAssociateProfessor at IndianaUniversityat Bloomington.He receivedhis D.B.A. degreefrom Indiana interests includeleadership, socialinfluence Hisresearch University. processes, motivation, betweenemployeeattitudesandbehaviors. andtherelationship *** Bor-Shiuan Chengis Chairperson of the Departmentof Psychologyat Fu-HsinKong Universityin Taipei,Taiwan.He receivedhis Ph.D. in Psychologyfrom the NationalTaiwanUniversity. His majorresearchinterestsare in the areasof leadership andjob satisfaction. The authors would like to express their appreciationto the DirectorateGeneral of Telecommunications, Ministryof Communicationsof the Republicof Chinafor helpingto make this researchpossible.

43

Palgrave Macmillan Journals is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to Journal of International Business Studies ® www.jstor.org

44

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONALBUSINESSSTUDIES, FALL 1987

attitudes,or behaviors.Kerr and Jermier(1978) have definedleadership the effectiveness as variables which"paralyze, destroy,or counteract neutralizers of somethingelse. In the contextof leadershipthis term may be appliedto whichmakeit effectivelyimpossible for ... leadership to make thecharacteristics on the otherhand,are defined a difference" substitutes, (p. 395). Leadership as "a personor thingactingor used in place of another.This termmay be usedto describecharacteristics whichrender... leadership not only impossible " butalsounnecessary.(p. 395). Includedamongthe variablesthathavebeen identifiedas potentialsubstitutes characteristics or neutralizers by KerrandJermier(1978) aresix organizational formalization; inflexibilityof rules;cohesiveness (the degreeof organizational rewards of workgroups;amountof staffand advisorysupport;organizational and not controlledby the leader;and the spatialdistancebetweensupervisors theirsubordinates); threetypesof taskcharacteristics (routine,methodologically invarianttasks;intrinsicallysatisfyingtasks;and task feedback);and four subordinate characteristics (abilities,experience,training,and knowledge;need forindependence; andindifference orientation, towardrewards). professional Despitethe fact that Kerrand Jermier(1978) explicitlyindicatedthat they to be applicable to a widevarietyof different intendedtheirnotionof "substitutes" and(presumably) culturalsettings,andthateffortsshouldbe made organizational to extendthem to a numberof differenttypesof leaderbehaviors,only one study(Podsakoff,Dorfman,Howell,and Todor1986) has been conductedto examinethe utilityof the "substitutes" conceptswith differentleaderbehaviors in differentcultures.Podsakoffet al. (1986) examinedthe applicability of the in Mexican electronics workers theMexican substitutes notionwithbothU.S.and Maquiladoraindustry.Using a combinedemic-eticapproach(Bhagatand McQuaid,1982;Moreyand Luthans,1984;Triandis,Malpass,and Davidson 1973), they reportedlittle supportfor the hypothesisthat Kerrand Jermier's substitutesmoderatethe relationshipsbetween certainleader rewardand punishmentbehaviorsand subordinateperformanceand attitudes.More found(a) thatleadercontingentrewardbehavior specifically, theseresearchers andsatisfaction, wasgenerallypositivelyrelatedto subordinate (b) performance behaviorwas generallynegativelyrelatedto leadernoncontingent punishment and(c) althoughsomeof KerrandJermier's criterion thesesubordinate variables, noneof thesemoderators forleadership moderated theserelationships, substitutes rewardbehavior betweencontingent reversedthegenerallypositiverelationships orsatisfaction, orthegenerally andsubordinate negativerelationships performance variables. behaviorandthesecriterion betweeenleadernoncontingent punishment becausethey The findingsreportedby Podsakoffet al. (1986) are interesting of thepresenceof leadership leadersaremore substitutes, suggestthat,regardless fortheirgoodperformance effectiveto the extentthattheyrewardsubordinates Sincetheseeffectsaresimilarto those anddo not punishthemindiscriminately. that have been reportedin severaldifferentsamplesobtainedin the United States(Podsakoff, Todor,Grover,andHuber Todor,andSkov 1982;Podsakoff, thatleaderrewardandpunishment alsosuggestthepossibility 1984),thesefindings behaviorsmay have similareffectsacrossnationaland culturalboundariesas

45

LEADERSHIPIN TAIWAN

well.Putanotherway,it is possiblethattherearesomeclassesof leaderbehavior andculturalmoderators. whoseeffectsarerelativelyfreeof organizational THEPRESENTSTUDY

theprimaryobjectiveof theproposed Withinthecontextof theabovediscussion, behaviorsand studyis to examinethe effectsof leaderrewardandpunishment severalpotentialsituationalmoderatorsof theseleaderbehaviors,includinga in a differentcultural for leadership, numberof Kerrand Jermier'ssubstitutes setting(Taiwan).Contraryto the predictionsderivedfromKerrand Jermier, but consistentwith the researchreportedby Podsakoffet al. (1984; 1986), it variables thatfew of the situational is the expectationof the presentresearchers betweenleadercontingentreward will be foundto moderatethe relationships and noncontingentpunishmentbehaviorsand subordinatesatisfactionor performance. METHOD

Plan of Workand Sample

of a Chinese Theemphasisof thefirststageof thisstudywason thedevelopment translation versionof the researchquestionnaire througha translation-back of Bhagatand McQuaid process.This processfollowedthe recommendations Brislin(1980), (1982),Sechrest,Fay,andHafeezZaidi(1972),andparticularly withtheexceptionthattheEnglishlanguageversionsof thescalesweretranslated ratherthan a bilingualvolunteer.In the into Chineseby a paid professional, translated the Englishversionof the questionnaire firstphase,thepaidtranslator into translated versionwasthenback-translated intoChinese.Thisprofessionally andthenbackinto Chineseandbackinto English Englishby the investigators, wasusedto helpensurean accurate onceagain.Thisback-translation procedure fromtheliteralEnglishlanguagetranslation prosetranslation thatwasdecentered (WernerandCampbell1970). of Data for this studywere collectedfromthe Ministryof Communications Taiwan. This organizationemploys over 30,000 workersand is the sole telecommunicationsorganizationin Taiwan, serving the domestic and international telephone,telegraph,and telex markets.A sampleof 250 leadersubordinate dyadswas drawnfromthreemajordivisionsof this organization: theNorthernTaiwanTelecommunications theSouthernTaiwan Administration, Telecommunications Training Administration, and the Telecommunications in the measuresthatwereto be obtained(thereby Institute.To insurevariability permittinga more effectivetest of the effectsof the potentialmoderators), participantswere drawnfrom all occupationalgroupsin the organization, clerical,andblue-collar instructional, including managerial, engineering/technical, jobs. andwerereturned weredistributed to supervisors andsubordinates, Questionnaires to theresearchers thatweredesignated directlythroughthe mail,or coordinators were for each unit. One hundredand ninety-five(195) usablequestionnaires

46

JOURNALOF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES,FALL1987

rateof78%.Theaverageageoftherespondents collectedinthestudy,fora response in thesamplewasabout37 yearsold,andtheiraveragetenurein theorganization was about 13 years.Respondents had workedan averageof five and a half yearsin theirpresentjobs. Approximately 80%of the samplewas male,and 87%were married.Of those that were married,61%had a workingspouse. Eightpercent(8%)of the sampledid not completehigh school,28%had a high school degree,12%had attendedsome college,and the remaining52% receiveda four-year or moreadvanceddegree. undergraduate Measures LeaderRewardand PunishmentBehaviors.Respondents' perceptionsof the rewardandpunishment behaviorsof theirleadersweremeasuredby a 23-item scale developedby Podsakoffand Skov (Podsakoffet al. 1984; 1986). Prior hasshownit to factoranalyzeinto a relatively researchwiththisquestionnaire consistentfour-factorsolution.The firstof these factorsmeasuresthe extent to which a leaderis perceivedto providepositivefeedback,commendations, praise,and otherformsof socialapprovalfor good performance, and is called leadercontingent rewardbehavior(CR)(10 items).Thesecondfactormeasures the extent to which subordinatesperceivetheir leaderto indicatehis/her andadminister for poorperformance, disapproval, displeasure, reprimands and is labeledleadercontingent punishment behavior(CP) (5 items).Thus,leaders who areperceivedto use CR and CP areperceivedto administer rewardsand third The factormeasuresthe degreeto whichthe punishments appropriately. and praise supervisoris perceivedto providerecognition,commendations, of theirsubordinates' andis calledleadernoncontingent independent performance, rewardbehavior(NCR)(4 items).Finally,the fourthfactorassessesthe extent to which a leaderis perceivedto administerpunitiveeventsinappropriately, andis calledleadernoncontingent behavior punishment (NCP)(4 items).Previous researchusingbothEnglishlanguage(Podsakoffet al. 1982;1984)andSpanish has shownit language(Podsakoffet al. 1986) versionsof this questionnaire withthemajority to havegenerally of theCronbach goodpsychometric properties, of thefourscalesrangingfrom.80 to .95. alphareliabilities Behaviors. As indicated PotentialModerators of LeaderRewardandPunishment earlier,severalpotentialmoderatorsof the leader rewardand punishment inthisresearch. criteria behavior-subordinate wereexamined variable relationships Allof thesemoderators reasons werechosenonthebasisof theoretical/conceptual for expectingthat they mightinteractwith the effectsof leaderrewardor Measuresof behavioron subordinate satisfaction or performance. punishment were obtainedfroma modifiedversion1of Kerrand ten of thesemoderators Jermier's forLeadership Scale:(1) ability,experience, (1978)Substitutes training, andknowledge(3 items);(2) professionalorientation (5 items);(3) indifference rewards(3 items);(4) unambiguous, to organizational routine,methodologically invarianttasks(6 items);(5) intrinsically satisfyingtasks(4 items);(6) closelyrewardsoutsidethe knit, cohesiveworkgroups(5 items);(7) organizational leader'scontrol(6 items);(8) spatialdistancebetweenleaderand subordinates (4 items);(9) organizationalformalization (6 items);and(10) the subordinate's needfor independence (3 items).

LEADERSHIPIN TAIWAN

47

Two otherpotentialsituationalmoderatorsof leaderrewardand punishment behavior,which have been identifiedby Sims and Szilagyi(1975), are role ambiguityand role conflict.Accordingto Rizzo,House,and Lirtzman(1970), role clarity(the oppositeof role ambiguity)reflects"(1) the predictability of the outcomeor responsesto one's behavior,and (2) the existenceor clarity of behavioralrequirements... which would serveto guide behaviorand provide

knowledgethatthe behavioris appropriate." (pp. 155-156).Role conflict,on the otherhand,is definedas the "congruency-incongruency or compatibilityin the requirements incompatibility of the (employee's)role,wherecongruency or compatibilityis judgedrelativeto a set of standardsor conditionswhich impingeuponrole performance." (Rizzoet al. 1970, p. 155). Role ambiguity and role conflictwere measuredwith six and eightitems,respectively, taken fromtheoriginal30-itemscaledevelopedby Rizzo,HouseandLirtzman (1970). Theshortened versionsof theoriginalscaleswereusedbecauseof thepsychometric superiority theyhavebeenshownto possessin the researchreportedby Schuler, Aldag,andBrief(1977). Finally,measuresof the characteristics of subordinates' jobs werealso obtained fromsupervisors via Hackmanand Oldham's(1980) Job RatingForm(JRF). This form was developedby Hackmanand Oldhamto allow supervisors to assess variouscharacteristics of their subordinates' jobs, includingthe five dimensions used in the present study: job variety, autonomy, identity (or andfeedback.Thesejob characteristics completeness), significance, wereincluded

becausepreviousresearchhasindicatedthattheymayinfluencetherelationships betweensomeleaderbehaviorsandsubordinate criterionvariables. Employeecriterionvariables.Subordinate performance and satisfaction served as the criterionvariablesin the presentstudy.Employees'performancewas assessedby havingeach subordinate's immediatesupervisorevaluatehim/her on five differentdimensionsof work performance, includingeffectiveness of time spentat work,doingmoreworkthanis required,and settinghighgoals for themselves.Previousanalysesof the psychometric propertiesof this scale (Podsakoffet al. 1984;1986)haveindicated thatitsinternal consistency reliabilities rangefrom.89 to .94 acrossa widevarietyof differentsamples. Subordinates' satisfactionwas assessedby the Job DescriptiveIndex (JDI), developedby Smith,Kendall,and Hulin(1969). The JDI measuresemployee satisfactionover five differentfacets(satisfaction with work,supervision, pay, co-workers,and opportunities for advancement in the job), and was chosen becausethe evidenceregardingits validityand reliabilityhas generallybeen shownto be quitefavorable(cf., Imparato1972;Johnson,Smith,and Tucker 1982;Schriesheim andKinicki1981). AnalyticalProcedures

Priorto testingfor the effectsof the potentialmoderatorvariables,the factor structureof the leaderrewardand punishmentitemswas examined,and the means,standarddeviations,and reliabilities of each of the scalesused in the presentstudywerecomputedandtheintercorrelations amongall of thevariables wereexamined.Giventhe substantial empiricalevidenceregarding the Leader

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONALBUSINESSSTUDIES, FALL 1987

48

(Podsakoffet al. 1982, 1984, 1986), Rewardand PunishmentQuestionnaire the factoranalysisof this scale was conductedwhile specifyinga four-factor solution. of Arnold(1985), Cohenand Cohen(1975), Followingthe recommendations was moderated regression andHowell,Dorfman,andKerr(1986),hierarchical for of substitutes effects the various moderating employedto test the potential behaviors on therelationships betweenleaderrewardandpunishment leadership and subordinateperformanceand satisfaction.This procedureinvolvesthe on theleader variable(e.g.,performance) of thedependent regression hierarchical behaviorof interest(e.g., leadercontingentrewardbehavior),the potential andthe crossvariable(e.g.,one of KerrandJermier'ssubstitutes), moderating productinteractiontermof the leaderbehaviorof interestand the potential interaction termproducesa significant variable.If the cross-product moderating theamountof variance increases value(thatis,significantly changeintheR-square thenthe moderating accountedforin the criterionvariableunderexamination), effecton thenatureof therelationship as havinga significant variableis identified betweenthe leaderbehaviorunderexaminationand the criterionvariable.In thatwere relationships orderto furtherexaminethe natureof the moderating regression obtainedusingthe abovedescribedanalysis,follow-upsplit-groups change analyseswereconductedin thosecasesin whichtherewas a significant term. in R-squared valuefortheinteraction RESULTS Factor Analysis

Table1 reportsthe varimaxrotatedfactorsolutionof the LeaderRewardand in thepresentsample.As indicatedin thistable,those Punishment Questionnaire TABLE1 VarimaxRotated Factor Loadings for the Leader Rewardand Punishment Questionnaire (Taiwanese Workers,N = 195) CR

NCP

CP

NCR

.83 .83

-.03 -.05

.04 .13

.08 .11

.81

-.17

.15

.12

.81

-.13

.09

.08

.79

.08

.12

.08

.76

-.14

.10

.09

.67

-.36

-.09

-.05

.65

-.26

.08

-.06

ContingentRewardBehavior(CR) 1. Myleader informshis boss and/orothersin the organizationwhen I do outstandingwork. 2. IfI do well,I knowmy supervisorwillrewardme. 3. Myleadercommends me when I do a betterthan average job. 4. Myleaderalwaysgives me positivefeedback when I performwell. 5. Myleaderpersonallypays me a complimentwhen I do outstandingwork. 6. Myleadergives me special recognitionwhen my workperformanceis especiallygood. 7. Ioftenperformwell in myjob and stillreceive no praisefrommy leader (R)a 8. Mygood performanceoftengoes unacknowledged by my leader.(R)a

LEADERSHIPIN TAIWAN

49

TABLE 1 continued Varimax Rotated Factor Loadings for the Leader Reward and Punishment Questionnaire (Taiwanese Workers, N = 195)

9. My leader would quickly acknowledge an improvement in the quality of my work. 10. My leader would do all that (s)he could to help me go as far as I would like to go in this organization if my work was consistently above average.

CR

NCP

CP

NCR

.62

-.20

.34

.11

.61

-.34

.13

.20

-.32

.73

.11

.15

-.26

.71

.21

.12

-.12

.70

.02

.02

-.31

.64

.04

.04

.20

-.1 0

.80

.05

.29

-.11

.73

.02

.06

.28

.70

-.25

.08

.29

.66

-.14

.02

.42

.55

-.25

Noncontingent Punishment Behavior (NCP) 11. I frequently am reprimanded by my leader without knowing why. 12. My leader is often critical of my work even when I perform well. 13. My leader is often displeased with my work for no apparent reason. 14. My leader frequently holds me accountable for things I have no control over Contingent Punishment Behavior (CP) 15. When my work is not up to par, my leader points it out to me. 16. My leader lets me know about it when I perform poorly 17. My leader shows his/her displeasure when my work is below acceptable standards. 18. If I performed at a level below that which I was capable of, my leader would indicate his/her disapproval. 19. My supervisor would reprimand me if my work was below standard. Noncontingent Reward Behavior (NCR) 20. My leader is just as likely to praise me when I do poorly as when I do well. 21. Even when I perform poorly, my leader often commends me. 22. Even when I perform poorly on my job, my leader rarely gets upset with me. 23. My leader frequently praises me even when I don't deserve it. Eigenvalues (Before Rotation) Percent of Variance Explained Cumulative Variance Explained

.12

.07

-.01

.85

.09

.07

.00

.82

.20

.23

-.1 1

.72

.00

-.14

.28

.55

7.12 31.00

3.38 14.70 45.70

2.66 11.50

.98 4.30

57.20

61.50

31.00

aReverse coded items

items that load stronglyon the first factor representsubordinates'perceptions thattheirleadersadministerpraise,approval,and positivefeedbackappropriately (that is, contingentupon good performance).Subsequently,this factorhas been labeled leader contingent reward behavior (CR). The items that load on the second factor reflect subordinates'perceptionsthat their leaders are critical of their (the subordinates')work and frequentlyreprimandthem even when they

50

BUSINESS STUDIES,FALL1987 JOURNALOF INTERNATIONAL

punishment don'tdeserveit; therefore,it is identifiedas leadernoncontingent behavior(NCP).The itemsthatload stronglyon the thirdfactor,on the other perceptionsthat theirleadersadminister hand,appearto reflectsubordinates' deserveto be punished),and punitiveeventscontingently(whensubordinates behavior(CP).Finally, thisfactoris identifiedas leadercontingentpunishment perceptions theitemsthatloadon thefourthfactorappearto reflectsubordinates' in his/herapplicationof rewards, that theirleaderis relativelyindiscriminate rewardbehavior and, therefore,the factoris labeledas leadernoncontingent thesefourfactorswerefoundtoaccountforapproximately (NCR).Takentogether, 62%of thecommonvariancein theitems. Preliminary Analyses

andinternal (Cronbach deviations, consistency Table2 reportsthemeans,standard alpha)reliabilitiesfor the variablesused in the study.Analysisof this table obtainedfor mostof the measureswere indicatesthatalthoughthe reliabilities in an acceptablerange,some of the substitutesmeasuresand the JRF job measuresare less than desirable.2 While these reliabilitiesare characteristics they are generallyconsistentwith the recentresearch somewhatproblematic, on thesubstitutes scalesreportedby HowellandDorfman(1981)andPodsakoff Farh,and Wong et al. (1984; 1986),and the researchreportedby Birnbaum, (1986) usingthe JRF in HongKong;andtheysuggestthatadditionalattention may needto be directedat improvingthe propertiesof thesescalesfor future research. inTable2 arethezero-order correlations amongtheleaderbehaviors Alsoreported in measured this other variables and all of the study.Consistentwith earlier researchreportedby Podsakoffet al. (1984; 1986),contingentrewardbehavior (CR) was foundto be positivelyrelatedto contingentpunishmentbehavior punishmentbehavior(NCP); (CP), and negativelyrelatedto noncontingent was found to be relatedto noncontingent negatively (CP) contingent punishment rewardbehavior(NCR);and NCR and NCP were not foundto be related behavior punishment to eachother.Somewhatsurprisingly, however,contingent behavior. wasalsofoundto be positivelyrelatedto noncontingent punishment The resultsreportedin Table2 also indicatethatcontingentrewardbehavior generallyhas the strongestzero-ordercorrelationswith both the potential moderatorvariablesand subordinatecriterionvariables,followedby leader punishmentbehavior.Leadercontingentrewardbehaviorwas noncontingent and all foundto be significantly performance positivelyrelatedto subordinate while satisfaction; leader five facetsof employee noncontingent punishment criterion behaviorwas foundto be negativelyrelatedto all of thesesubordinate CR was also significantly negatively variablhs. positivelyand NCP significantly of roleconflictandroleambiguity; suggesting perceptions relatedto subordinates' that contingentrewardbehavioradministered by the leadertendsto reduce behaviortendsto increase punishment role stress,while leadernoncontingent between exceptionof the negativerelationship it. Withthe somewhatsurprising neithercontingentpunishmentbehaviornor CP and employeeperformance, noncontingentreward behavior were significantlyrelated to subordinate

LEADERSHIPIN TAIWAN

z

51

@

WC\l C'-

,.

I

.0

a\

aw.

I

w C\lC

o. LM O o.

IB ,

W@O,,CD CD

I

CO 0 C\ O

I

IOUOI

INN

C

CO C\l

0M

co.

o.

r.

C\, O

0 C

0> .20

O)t ~~C\l

D

=

w

~~

0

~.

CO 0s

I

OQtss

cO

.

a)

._~~~~~~~~~ E

ul n

X0D

COCl .

..

n

s

cEotn CD co N cs o cs W N

n

N

N

X

LO

CO N N

t

N

cso N

a:

E

We

o

o

o

E

co

w

c

to I

P- P-- I'

P- w

M

N

0

Co5

E

0 to co co

E

X

LO

N

0

Cu

0 Co5O l)

C aco

0

LO

O

CD

O 0C

O) CD

C

0

c\

()

E)E

co 0 c )o0 -r

a,U

C

c C) 0

00 >C .0'.ja, ooz CU -co =

0c

?

C E

0L2

U)

.N

z

C

It c0 .n MO

- - -~CiCiC O

U~~~~~~~~\ m~ ~~CO

Cu eM

t

c.C

C

U-~:~

a. .-

_

N

o0 :ca

.a

,_

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONALBUSINESSSTUDIES, FALL 1987

52

C~j

N--C

0

rlC\o

BN

o M

rl

0

0

CO 0.

m

N CM ";I MtCf 0

f

C

O

.

Z

(O

_";-

0

C\

.

.

CS

C\

OCf)

,.

.

.

c

M

,.

cM

s

.

,.

~~~QN-~~~~~0N-

.

00

. . ..

L(OQ')Nl-L '

.

o.

U _( ELOLCLCO

00

.D"

m E

N

O al

'v0 E

00- Lo

uicc t C. 7 o

Ec'3

E

m " X

E

O)

0cen

QCN

Cf)

Z

.2o4~~

C'~

(D

l

l

LO 00 LO S

0

t

m

D UD N UD U

m

m

m

m

LO

m

Lo

Oo

o o

o o

0 0 *

4)

-

N

M

M

M

o

M

"t

m

l

C\j

O

~~~~~~~~co~~~~~~~~~~~~c C/)

~~~~~~~~~~~~ XNn

0

fo ._

CZ

a)

(LQCJ LO 00 0

~

(6fS

C15

6

(6

00

C)LO

LOC'JCL 0) C6

SS

06 U~

(6

O "t t C6 6

L

4UDU DC)D DS0 C)OU

(no-~~~~~~~~~~~0

)uc( 0

So

E _ Ns- _ CM C)stst_ 0

C

Z C -~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

0

1 -) 8~~~~~~~~..

70 'E

CZ1O*

.~ E
n

~

L-

cl) CZ)

LEADERSHIPIN TAIWAN

53

performanceor satisfaction.Taken together with the earlier reportedpositive relationshipbetween CP and NCP, the significantnegative relationshipfound between contingent punishment behavior and performance suggests that punishmentof any kind may be viewed as noncontingentby the Taiwanese workers in the present sample, and, therefore,has some dysfunctionaleffects on subordinateperformance. IndependentEffectsof LeaderRewardand PunishmentBehaviors The correlationalevidencereportedin Table 2 indicatesthat many of the leader rewardand punishmentbehaviorsare significantlyrelatedto each other. Thus, in order to determinetheir independenteffects on employee performanceand satisfaction,a partial regressionprocedure was used. In this procedure, the individualcontributionof each of the leader behaviorsto each of the criterion variables was examined after the effects of the other three leader behaviors had been partialledout. As indicatedin Table 3, the resultsof this procedure provide similarfindingsto those reportedin Table 1 in that they indicate that contingentrewardbehavior is positively relatedto employee performanceand all facetsof satisfaction,and that noncontingentpunishmentbehavioris generally negativelycorrelated(althoughno longer always significantly)with these same criterionvariables. TABLE3

PartialRegression Coefficients of Leader Behaviors on Subordinate Performance and Satisfaction CR Performance WorkSatisfaction SupervisorSatisfaction Co-workerSatisfaction Pay Satisfaction AdvancementSatisfaction

.21 .44*** .43*** .30*** .27** .47***

CP -.20* -.03 -.15 .02 -.06 .03

NCR

NCP

-.07 -.09 -.02 -.02 -.11 -.03

-.15 -.16 (p < .06) -.25** -.31 -.04 -.01

p