PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

1990.43

A TEST OF THE SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORY

WARREN BLANK
The Leadership Group
Maharishi International University
JOHN R. WEITZEL
Syracuse University
STEPHEN G. GREEN
Purdue University

Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory (1982) is widely

known and used, but has limited, mixed empirical validation. This
study examines the underlying assumptions regarding the theory’s pre-
scriptions that subordinate maturity moderates the relationship of
leader task and relationship behaviors with indicants of leader effec-
tiveness. Results of this analysis do not support these assumptions. An
examination of the more complex predictions of the theory also show
little support for it. Findings are discussed in terms of future research
and theory development.

In their situational leadership theory (SLT), Hersey and Blanchard

(1969,1982) argue that a leader’s task behavior and relationship behav-
ior interact with subordinate maturity to significantly influence leader
effectiveness. SLT is one of a class of situational approaches to leader-
ship. For example, Fiedler (1964,1967) suggests three situational factors
(leader-member relations, position power, and task structure) moderate
the relationship between leader traits and leader effectiveness. Path-goal
theory (House, 1971) proposes that task and subordinate characteristics
moderate the impact of four types of leader behavior (supportive, direc-
tive, participative, and achievement oriented) on subordinate effort and
satisfaction. SLT focuses on only one situational variable (subordinate
maturity) as a moderator of two leader behaviors (task and relationship)
and leader effectiveness.
SLT is intuitively appealing (Yukl, 1981) and popular with practicing
managers. Various training publications prominently advertise SLT ma-
terials, and managers attend literally thousands of SLT programs each
year. Situational leadership theory has also been cited in the academic
literature as an important situational approach to leadership effective-
ness (Yukl, 1981).

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Warren Blank, Ph.D.,
The Leadership Group, 3463 State Street, Suite 157, Santa Barbara, CA 93105.

COPYRIGHT 0 1990 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY,INC.

579
580 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Yet the theory proposes complex relationships between variables and

contains conceptual ambiguities and contradictions (Graeff, 1983, pro-
vides a complete discussion). In addition, the theory has received only
limited empirical attention (Yukl, 1981). Two published tests of SLT
(Hambleton & Gumpert, 1982; Vecchio, 1987) have shown mixed sup-
port and have various methodological limitations. Thus, the utility of
this well known theory that has widespread use is difficult to evaluate.
To better understand SLT, the basic assumptions underlying the model
require examination. Existing research has not done this. The more
complex formulations of the model may then be examined. Limitations
in previous research regarding important methodological issues (e.g.,
measurement of key variables) also need attention. This study empir-
ically examines SLT in this manner to extend our understanding of the
theory and its potential usefulness.

Situational Leadership Theoty

SLT focuses on two primary types of leader behavior: task and rela-
tionship behavior (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982). Hersey and Blanchard
(1969, 1982) suggest that these behaviors are very similar to consider-
ation and initiation of structure which are well grounded in leadership
literature (e.g., Cartwright & Zander, 1960; Halpin, 1959; Katz, Mac-
coby & Morse, 1950). Moreover, Hersey and Blanchard (1982) suggest
that the task and relationship behaviors be operationalized in a manner
that closely parallels existing operationalizations of consideration and
initiation of structure (see Leader Behavior Descriptive Questionnaire
[LBDQ-XII], Stogdill & Coons, 1957). Vecchio (1987) used the LBDQ-
XI1 to measure task and relationship behavior, arguing it is a more widely
accepted index of leader behavior than the Hersey and Blanchard LEAD
instrument. Therefore, the present study measures leader task and rela-
tionship behaviors in terms of consideration and initiation of structure.
SLT aldo focuses on subordinate “maturity” as the key situational
characteristic that is said to moderate the relationship between leader
behavior (task and relationship) and leader effectiveness (Hersey &
Blanchard, 1969, 1982). Maturity is defined as the “ability and willing-
ness of people to take responsibility for directing their own behavior”
(Hershey & Blanchard, 1982, p. 151). Hersey and Blanchard (1982) ar-
gue that subordinate maturity consists of two dimensions: psychological
maturity and job maturity. Psychological maturity is somewhat ambigu-
ously defined in Hersey and Blanchard’s (1982) recent work. It is char-
acterized as a “willingness or motivation to do something” and as hav-
ing “to do with confidence and commitment” (p. 157). Examples of its
 WARREN BLANK ET AL. 581

operationalization focus on willingness to take responsibility, achieve-

ment motivation, and commitment to an objective (p. 159). In earlier
works, psychological maturity was defined in terms of “the relative inde-
pendence, achievement motivation, and ability to take responsibility” of
the subordinate (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969, p. 221). Hersey and Blan-
chard suggest the relative independence component is drawn from Ar-
gyris (1957) and involves an individual’s self-sufficiency. The achieve-
ment motivation component reflects work by McClelland and Atkinson
(e.g., McClelland, Atkinson, Clark & Lowell, 1953). Hersey and Blan-
chard provide no citable reference for ability to take responsibility. They
do not explain its inclusion as an element of psychological maturity. Job
maturity is defined in terms of the “ability to do something” and is seen
as strongly related to educational and job experience (Hersey & Blan-
chard, 1982, p. 157).
To test the theory’s underlying assumptions, both psychological and
job maturity need to be addressed. Since maturity is a key element of
SLT, its measurement is central to testing the theory. Existing research
has not attempted to utilize a measure with adequate psychometricprop-
erties. Both Vecchio (1987) and Hambleton and Gumpert (1982) used
the Hambleton, Blanchard, and Hersey (1977) measure which has sev-
eral psychometric problems. For example, the measure contains only
five items to measure both categories of maturity. Single items are used
to represent complex constructs such as achievement motivation and
commitment. Each item has only polar anchor descriptors (using an
eight-point scale). Single item measures using only polar anchors have
questionable reliability and content validity (Nunnally, 1978). A new
11-item measure of psychological maturity, developed following scale
construction procedures suggested by Nunnally (1978), has shown ade-
quate internal consistency and both predictive and concurrent validity
(see Blank, Weitzel, Blau, & Green, 1988). Use of this scale to mea-
sure psychological maturity represents a methodological advance over
the two existing studies.
A second issue regarding maturity is that SLT suggests that job and
psychological maturity be combined. Graeff (1983) details that doing so
results in internal consistency problems with the model. To overcome
the problems raised by Graeff, an alternate approach would be to con-
sider both maturity dimensions separately when testing the theory’s basic
assumptions. To test the theory’s underlying assumptions, the maturity
measures are considered separately.
SLT argues that leader effectiveness results from appropriate
amounts of leader task and relationship behaviors being provided for
subordinates at different levels of maturity (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982).
582 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

The theory recommends a linear relationship between subordinate ma-

turity (both psychologicaland job) and task behavior. When subordinate
maturity is low, leaders need to provide high amounts of task behavior.
When subordinate maturity is high, leaders should provide low amounts
of task behavior. The relationship between subordinate maturity and re-
lationship behavior is somewhat more complex since it is proposed to be
curvilinear. When subordinate maturity is high or low, leaders need to
provide low amounts of relationship behavior. When maturity is moder-
ate, leaders need to provide high amounts of relationship behavior (see
Figure 1). When levels of the leader behaviors are provided for subordi-
nate maturity levels as indicated in Figure 1, SLT predicts greater leader
effectiveness.
SLT’sprescription to apply a combination of task and relationship be-
havior also presents problems. Combining task and relationship behav-
ior results in the model being unable to handle some situations in a logi-
cal manner (see Graeff, 1983). Existing studies (Hambleton & Gumpert,
1982; Vecchio, 1987)only report tests of the combined effects of task and
relationship behaviors, and results indicate mixed support for SLT. For

S
0

.-b
>
S

Task Behavior
Relationship
Behavior

MI M2 M3 M4

Low Moderate High

Follower Maturity

Figure I : Amounts of Leader Behaviors Prescribed in the Situa-

tional Leadership Theory for Different Levels of Subordinate Maturity.
Adapted from Leadership in Orgunizations (p. 142) by G. Yukl, 1981,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Copyright 1981 by Prentice-Hall.
Adapted by permission.
 WARREN BLANK ET AL. 583

this study, our first step was to examine the prescribed linear relationship
between task behavior and maturity and the prescribed curvilinear rela-
tionship between relationship behavior and maturity. This might shed
more light on the predictions of SLT and provide a comparison to exist-
ing, more complex, published assessments of the model.
Our second step in examining SLT was to test the more complex
formulation of SLT. Concerns with conducting this analysis are noted
above; however, a complete understanding of SLT requires taking this
step in addition to focusing on the underlying assumptions. Analyzing
the more complex formulation of SLT requires combining task and rela-
tionship behavior to create four “leader styles” suggested by the model
(see Figure 2). SLT argues that each style is most appropriate for one of

-
I
! I 1
-P
I
Hiah HiahTask

tP
K

sI
W
m
4
u)
Z

E9
W

1
(LO’ -TASK BEHAVIOR
’
I’ LowandTask‘ IRelationship!
Low
(1

Figure 2: Relationships Between Leader Style and Level of Subordi-

nate Maturity. From Management of Otganizational Behavior (4th ed.,
p. 200) by I? Hersey and K. Blanchard, 1982. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall. Copyright 1982, Prentice-Hall. Reprinted by permission.
584 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

four levels of maturity. For this analysis, psychological and job maturity
are combined since SLT suggests this. Again, we have noted above that
there are limitations implied by this approach. However, in faithfulness
to SLT, we conducted the analysis as SLT specifies.
Hersey and Blanchard (1982) suggest a difference in “effectiveness”
when there is a leader styleflevel of maturity “fit” as opposed to when
there is “no fit” between leader style/maturity. SLT suggests leader style
S1 fits maturity level M1, S2 fits M2, S3 fits M3, and S4 fits M4. We
examined this fit/no fit relationship in relation to criteria of effectiveness.
Figure 2 depicts the prescribed relationships between leader style and
subordinate maturity. The curve represents the change of leader style
required to achieve leader effectiveness for each level of maturity.
Hersey and Blanchard (1982) define effectiveness in terms of goal
accomplishment and the internal states or predispositions of the subor-
dinate. An effective leadership “style” influences subordinates to “do a
certain job” (p. 109), suggesting that subordinate performance should
be affected. Effective leadership style also creates a climate where the
subordinate “respects (the leader) and is willing to cooperate with (the
leader)” and finds the job rewarding (p. 109), suggesting that subordi-
nate affect also should be affected. Thus, this research focuses on sub-
ordinate performance and satisfaction with the supervisor and work as
indicants of leader effectiveness for both steps in the analysis (i.e., ex-
amination of underlying assumptions and the complex formulation of
the model). Use of multiple indicants of leader effectiveness provides a
more complete test of SLT.
In summary, the present study first examines the basic assumptions
of SLT. This is a reasonable step, not taken by previous research, to as-
sess the strength of SLT. In an effort to more fully examine SLT, our
second step was to analyze the relationship between combined task and
relationship behavior (leader style) and subordinate maturity. For both
analyses, pqrticular attention is given to the use of measures with ade-
quate psychometric properties since previous research on SLT, discussed
above, uses measures that strain standards of validity and reliability.

Hypotheses

Underlying SLT are assumptions about the contingent relationships

between leader behavior and subordinate maturity (see Figure 1). These
relationships suggest the following:

Hypothesis 1: Subordinate performance and satisfaction (supervisor and

work) will be related to an interaction of leader task behavior and subor-
dinate maturity (job or psychological):
 WARREN BLANK ET AL. 585

a. Under low subordinate maturity, task behavior will be positively re-

lated to performance; under high subordinate maturity, task behav-
ior will be negatively or not related to performance.
b. Under low subordinate maturity, task behavior will positively re-
lated to satisfaction; under high subordinate maturity, task behavior
will be negatively or not related to satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2: Subordinate performance and satisfaction (supervisor and
work) will be related to an interaction of leader relationship behavior and
subordinate maturity (job or psychological):
a. Under moderate subordinate maturity, relationship behavior will be
positively related to performance; under high and low subordinate
maturity, relationship behavior will be negatively or not related to
performance.
b. Under moderate subordinate maturity, relationship behavior will
be positively related to satisfaction; under high or low subordinate
maturity, relationship behavior will be negatively or not related to
satisfaction.

The fundamental hypothesis regarding the more complex formula-

tion of SLT (see Figure 2) suggests the following:

Hypothesis 3: Subordinate performance and satisfaction will be higher

when leadership style fits maturity level as prescribed by SLT than when
leadership style does not fit maturity level. For example, when leader style
1 (high task, low relationship) is used for subordinates in maturity level 1
(low), performance and satisfaction will be higher (see Figure 2).

Method

Sample

The sample consisted of 27 hall directors (HD: Leaders) and 353

resident advisors (RA: Subordinates) from two large midwestern uni-
versities. Of the RAs, 54% were females, 46% were males, 82% were
graduate and upperclass students, 17% were sophomores, and 1% were
first year students. Twelve (45%) of the HDs were female. The two or-
ganizations are very similar in structure 'and procedures. The leaders
(HDs) are full-time professionals supervising paraprofessional subordi-
nates (RAs) who have undergone extensive selection and training. HDs
play an important role in guiding, directing, and supporting the work of
the RA's. Weekly staff meetings and frequent formal and informal one-
on-one HD and RA interactions occur. HDs conduct formal job eval-
uations which impact retention decisions. The HD role has significant
impact on RA activities similar to any hierarchical organization. Matu-
rity of the subordinates is considered a central concept in this context
586 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

(e.g., Hoelting, 1980; Kauffman, 1968; Nickerson & Harrington, 1971).

Hersey and Blanchard (1982) describe the relevance of their theory to
educational settings and Vecchio (1987) used high school teachers and
principles as subjects for his study. Thus, the sample offers and appro-
priate context in which to examine SLT.

Measures

Leader behavior. The Leader Behavior Descriptive Questionnaire

(LBDQ-XII, Stogdill & Coons, 1957) was used to measure task (initi-
ation of structure) and relationship behavior (showing consideration).
These measures have been widely used despite certain limitations (e.g.,
Kerr & Schriesheim, 1974; Korman, 1966). However, given their strong
and direct links to SLT, and their use in previous research (Vecchio,
1987), they were felt to provide a reasonable and appropriate test. The
measure was completed by RAs in terms of the HD. Traditional scor-
ing of the LBDQ-XI1was used to yield the two leader behaviors. Items
for each scale were summed to create a score for task and relationship
behavior. The measures showed adequate internal consistency and a
moderate intercorrelation (see Table 1).
Maturity. Measures of job and psychological maturity were devel-
oped for this study. Psychometricprocedures suggested Nunnally (1978)
were used to develop the psychological maturity measure (see Blank,
Weitzel, Blau, & Green, 1988 for a complete description of the mea-
surement development procedure). Briefly, a set of 30 preliminary items
generated to measure independence, ability to take responsibility, and
achievement motivation (ten for each dimension) were administered to
a sample of 350 upper-class undergraduate students. Factor analysis
(VARIMAX rotation; minimum loadings > .40), suggested a scale of 12
items, four from each dimension of the psychological maturity construct
(alpha > .70).
The 12 iiems were administered to 84 managers enrolled as part-time
MBA students in two universities (universities other than the RA sam-
ple). These respondents described the maturity of a randomly selected
subordinate whom they currently or recently supervised in a full-time
job setting. Factor analysis (VARIMAX rotation) yielded a single factor
(Cronbach's alpha > .70), with one item loading below .40. This inde-
pendent sample provided initial support for the reliability and general-
izability of the scale.
In the present study, the 12 item psychological maturity scale was
completed by each RA who rated all other RAs in their hall (range of
 WARREN BLANK ET AL. 587

TABLE 1
Zero Order Correlation
Variables Mean SD Range 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1.Performance 380.8 61.7 170-425 nla

2.Supervisor satisfaction 44.2 8.01 12-54 .13* (.78)
3.Work satisfaction 34.9 7.61 9-51 .08 .19** (.67)
4.Task behavior 39.4 4.83 23-50 .04 .41** .19** (.78)
5.Relationship behavior 39.6 5.77 19-50 .11* .54** .19** SO** (34)
6.Psychological maturity 63.4 4.97 43-77 .40** .OO .10 -.08 -.01 (.95)
7.Job maturity 37.9 26.3 16-167 .06 .OO .06 .04 -.01 .05 nla
Note: Cronbach alpha on diagonal
*p<.05; **p<.OOl

RA staff size was 4-35 with a median size of 9). This “peer rating”
of psychological maturity was used because it avoided the bias of self-
reports. It also provided a measure of maturity that was independent of
the leader behavior descriptions (RAs) and the performance judgments
(HDs) thus minimizing method variance problems.
The psychological maturity measure was also completed by each RA
for himherself (a self rating) and by each HD for all hisher RAs (a
leader rating). These additional rating sources were used to assess the
validity and reliability of the psychological maturity measure (see below).
Data from each of these three rating sources (peer, self, and leader)
were factor analyzed (VARIMAX rotation). The three factor solutions
indicated that the same 11items as in the manager sample had adequate
(Le., > .40)loadings. Therefore, the 11 retained items were summed
to create a score for the self (Cronbach alpha = .95) and leader rating
(Cronbach alpha = .93). To derive a peer maturity rating, a mean score
for each item was computed for the ratings provided by all peers. These
mean scores were summed for the peer rating (Cronbach alpha = .95).
The 11items are: To what extent does : (1)follow through on
job tasks, (2) act conscientiously on the job, (3) know what to do on the
job without being told, (4)work hard on the job, (5) try hard to improve
hidher performance on the job, (6) strive to do hisher best on the job,
(7) make job related decisions on hisher own, (8) do extra on the job,
(9) take care to do the job right, (10) do a thorough job on any tasks
undertaken, (11) set hisher own job goals.
The peer rating of psychological maturity, which is used for all hy-
pothesis testing, demonstrated adequate reliability and validity. The
measure yielded substantially the same factor structure over five inde-
pendent samples and repeatedly demonstrated strong internal consis-
tency, suggesting good reliability. Its validity is supported by its strong,
repeatable internal consistency (Runkel & McGrath, 1972, argue that
588 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

this demonstrates validity through concordance of results). The peer

rating correlations with the leader rating of maturity ( r = .40, p < .OOl)
and the self rating ( r = .23, p < .01) suggest reasonable convergent va-
lidity. In addition, if one assumes more mature subordinates tend to
perform better, the relationship between peer ratings and performance
(r = .40, p < .001) can be seen as a demonstration of predictive valid-
ity. The low intercorrelations between psychological maturity and job
maturity and satisfaction also suggest discriminant validity (see Table 1).
Psychological maturity is distinguishable for general affective states and
job experience. Finally, the measure has face validity. Thus, the weight
of the evidence seems to indicate that the psychological maturity rating is
a reasonable representation of the construct. As a side note, use of the
self and leader rating sources was explored in all hypothesis tests and
results were similar to those using the peer rating.
Job maturity was measured in terms of “past job experience.” Hersey
and Blanchard (1982) suggest this is an important component of job
maturity. Both overall job experience (the number of months in resi-
dence hall related work) and experience in their present job (number of
months) were assessed. These two were summed to create single mea-
sure of job maturity.
Pelformance. Each school provided a midyear overall performance
rating for each RA in the study. Ratings were made by the HD for each
RA in hisher hall on 45 specificjob categories (five for each of nine gen-
eral objectives)using a five-point scale (1 = poor to 5 = excellent). Each
school’s confidentiality requirements resulted in their only reporting to
the research team each RAs mean score of all 45 items.
Satisfaction. Respondents completed the Job Descriptive Index
(Smith, Kendall, & H u h , 1969) supervisor and work satisfaction scales
as a measure of their satisfaction. These scales were chosen to represent
affect toward the leader and the work itself. The JDI was also used by
Vecchio (1997) in his test of SLT
Finally, to avoid confounding between-hall differences, the task be-
havior, relationship behavior, performance, supervisor satisfaction, and
work satisfaction measures were standardized within-hallwith a mean of
50 and a standard deviation of 10.

Data Collection

All data except the performance ratings were collected by question-

naire. In school 1, data were collected on site by the research team dur-
ing meetings with HDs and RAs. In school 2, data were collected by a
 WARREN BLANK ET AL. 589

site liaison during staff meetings within each hall. The liaison was a top-
ranking administrator within the residence hall system and was some-
one with whom the research team had close contact and a high level of
confidence. The liaison followed the research team’s carefully prepared
instructions. Participants at both sites were informed that the instru-
ments they were completing were to be used in a research study regard-
ing various behaviors of themselves and those with whom they worked.
Anonymity of their responses was assured and it was explained that only
aggregated results would be analyzed. Participants did not indicate any
concerns to the members of the research team at site 1 or to the liaison
at site 2 about their participation in the study. Follow-up data collection
sessions were provided at both schools. An overall participation rate of
88% was achieved across both schools.

Results

Since the first two hypotheses address the relationship between leader
behavior and leader effectiveness contingent on subordinate maturity,
moderated regression was used to test for a significant interaction term
for leader behavior and subordinate maturity in predicting subordinate
performance and satisfaction. Separate tests of the hypotheses were con-
ducted for psychological and job maturity.
For the hypotheses related to task behavior ( l a and b) both maturity
measures were dichotomized at the median. Low maturity was coded
as one and high maturity was coded as zero. The same analyses were
also conducted splitting both maturity measures into thirds and coding
the upper and lower thirds as one and zero. Since the results were
almost identical to the median split analyses, the median split findings
are reported here.
Results show little support for the hypotheses related to task behav-
ior (see Tables 2A and 2B). Only in the case of psychological maturity
and work satisfaction do we find a significant task behavior by maturity
interaction term. The form of the interaction does support the hypothe-
sis 2b (see Figure 3). Task behavior alone makes significant, unique con-
tributions to both types of satisfaction but not performance. Subordinate
psychological maturity alone makes a significant, unique contribution to
work satisfaction.
For the hypotheses related to relationship behavior (2a and b), both
maturity measures were divided into four quartiles. The middle two
quartiles were considered as the middle range or moderate group (i.e.,
the group which needed more relationship behavior) and coded as a one.
The lowest and highest quartiles were put into the extremes group (i.e.,
the group which needed less relationship behavior) and coded as zero.
590 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE 2A
Regression Models for Task Behavior and Psychological Maturity
Task Psychological Task x Psychological
Dependent behavior maturity maturity
variable R-Square p< P< P<
Performance .09*** .18 .10 .58
Supervisor satisfaction .17*** .O1 .45 .42
Work satisfaction .06** * .01 .O1 .03

TABLE 2B
Regression Models for Task Behavior and Job Maturity
Task Job Task x Job
Dependent behavior maturity maturity
variable R-Square P< P< P<
Performance .O1 - - -
Supervisor satisfaction .17*** .O1 .29 .41
Work satisfaction .03** .O1 .98 .98
Note: p values are for the partial F value for the terms and indicate unique contribution
to the model.
* *p<.o1; ***p<.oo1

high maturity

Work
Satisfaction
‘s

low maturity

Task Behavior

Figure 3: Plot of Task x Psychological Maturity Interaction

 WARREN BLANK ET AL. 591

TABLE 3A
Regression Models-Relationship Behavior and Psychological Maturity

Relationship Psychological Task x Psychological

Dependent behavior maturity maturity
variable R-Square p< P< P<

Performance .01 - - -
Supervisor satisfaction .29*** .01 .54 .62
Work satisfaction .04*** .01 .48 .68

TABLE 3B
Regression Models-Relationship Behavior and Job Maturity

Relationship Job Relationship x Job

Dependent behavior maturity maturity
variable &Square P< P< P<
Performance .01 - - -
Supervisor satisfaction .29*** .01 36 .70
Work satisfaction .04** .01 .45 .29
Note: p values are for the partial F value for the terms and indicate unique contribution
to the model.
* *p < . o 1 ; ***p<.oo1

Again, alternate splits were examined (i.e., upper and lower sixths coded
as extremes group, and third and fourth sixths coded as moderate group).
Almost identical results were obtained. The findings using quartile splits
are reported here.
Results (see Tables 3A and 3B) indicate no support for the hypothe-
ses. In no case was there a significant contribution by an interaction term.
In addition, neither maturity measure alone made significant unique
contributions for any of the criteria. The leader’s use of relationship
behavior, however, did make significant, unique contributions to both
types of subordinate satisfaction.
To examine the complex formulation of the model, four “leader
styles” and four “maturity levels” were created. Leader styles were cre-
ated by dividing both task and relationship behavior at the median into
a high and low levels. Each respondent was then assigned one of four
leader style scores: S1 = high task, low relationship; S2 = high task,
high relationship; S3 = low task, high relationship; and S4 = low task,
low relationship.
Maturity levels were created by dividing both psychological and job
maturity into four quartiles and then combining each respondent’s score
to create hisher maturity level. As noted above, there are ambiguities
inherent in this approach. The quartile splits of the job and psychological
maturity scores might not place a respondent in the same maturity level.
For example, the respondent might be in the second quartile for job
592 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE 4
MANOVA-Fit Between Leader Style and Subordinate Maturity

Fit No fit
Subordinate maturity (n = 128) (n =221) F df P
Multivariate - - 4.96 3,345 .02
Performance 3.83 3.80 .23 1,347 .63
Work satisfaction 36.51 33.95 9.46 1,347 .002
Supervisor satisfaction 44.81 43.80 .28 1,347 .26

maturity and in the third quartile for psychological maturity. Hersey and
Blanchard (1982) provide no guidelines on what to do with respondents
in such “ambiguous” maturity group. In the absence of clear guidelines,
we established a procedure for hypothesis testing that provides the most
liberal test of SLT
To test the fithot fit hypothesis, a fit grouping variable was created.
If the leader style exactly matched the prescribed style for both the sub-
ordinate’s job and psychological maturity level, the fit grouping variable
was set to indicate “fit” (e.g., if leader style was S2 and both job and
psychological maturity placed the respondent in level two, fit was indi-
cated). For respondents in an ambiguous maturity level, the fit grouping
variable was set to indicate “fit” when leader style showed a prescribed
match with either of the maturity variable levels (e.g., for S1 leader style,
a fit was indicated if either job or psychological maturity were in maturity
level one). Otherwise the grouping variable was set to indicate “no fit.”
This provided a liberal test of SLT.
One-way MANOVA was used with performance, supervisor and work
satisfaction as the dependent variable and fithot fit as the grouping vari-
able. To test whether or not fit added to variance contributed by task
behavior, relationship behavior, and subordinate maturity, analysis of
covariance was run with fit as the grouping variable and task behavior,
relationshiq behavior, and subordinate maturity as covariates. All com-
binations of fit were tested against all combinations of no fit. Results
indicate a multivariate result for fit between leader style and subordi-
nate maturity (see Table 4). An examination of the one-way analysis
of variance results for each criterion variable indicates the significant
MANOVA is primarily due to work satisfaction ( F = 9.46, 1,347 df,p
= .002). Although all means are in the expected direction, this result
provides not much more support for SLT. As a further test, the same
analyses were conducted using the self- and leader-ratings of maturity.
There were no significant relationships using the self-rating. A signifi-
cant multivariate result was found using the leader-rating with none of
the one-way analyses significant.
 WARREN BLANK ET AL. 593

Discussion

Previous research (i.e., Hambleton & Gumpert, 1982;Vecchio, 1987)

showed mixed support for SLT. These studies attempted to test the
complex and, as described by Graeff (1983)’ potentially ambiguous and
contradictory prescriptions of the theory. The present study tested the
model’s basic assumptions that underlie its prescriptions. This approach
was viewed as a reasonable way to help us understand SLT and perhaps
shed more light on the mixed findings of previous studies.
These results reveal a lack of support for the basic assumptions that
underlie SLT. In only one case, psychological maturity and task behav-
ior, did an interaction of leader behavior and subordinate maturity pre-
dict subordinate outcomes, i.e., work satisfaction. Given the rather ex-
tensive analyses, 12 regression models repeated for two different par-
titions of the data, these findings do not bolster our confidence in the
assumptions that underlie the predictions of SLT. This is disappointing
because of the intuitive appeal of the theory.
The results also raise questions about the results reported in the
Hambleton and Gumpert (1982) and Vecchio (1987) work. Although
both efforts show methodological care, the reports of these works do
not allow us to evaluate if their data would support SLT’s underlying as-
sumptions. Perhaps performance and satisfaction are only affected when
task and relationship behavior take on certain values related to maturity.
However, more complex tests (similar to those used by Vecchio) were
conducted to assess this for the data used in the present study. These
findings showed only mixed support for the complex matches between
maturity and leader behavior. Although a multivariate effect was found,
it was due primarily to work satisfaction which is similar to the findings
regarding the underlying assumptions.
Perhaps the lack of support for SLT found in this research can be
explained by the measurement procedures used. The Hambleton, Blan-
chard, and Hersey measure of maturity may be tapping some dimensions
that interact with leader behaviors that the present study’s maturity mea-
sures do not tap. A question is what is the Hambleton, Blanchard, and
Hersey measure addressing? How would this measure converge with the
measure used in this study?
In addition, in Vecchio’s work, performance and maturity were mea-
sured by the leader. In the present study performance data was provided
by leaders and maturity data provided by peers. Perhaps this explains
the difference in results. In that case, SLT may have a narrower range
of utility (i.e., its prescriptions regarding interactions of leader behavior
594 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

and maturity apply only when the leader's performance and maturity as-
sessments of subordinates are used). Obviously more research is needed
on SLT to help us understand it.
At this point, given the results of the small line of research to which
this study adds, it is difficult to be very optimistic about SLT. The model's
underlying assumptions were not supported and the complex formula-
tion of the model received mixed support. Of course, one must always be
concerned that a reasonable examination was provided. In the present
case, we had reason to believe the sample and the setting employed
would be pertinent to the processes described by SLT. Moreover, the
SLT authors invoked similar settings in presenting their theory, and Vec-
chi0 used an educational setting for his work. Future research could only
benefit by examining SLT across different samples (Vecchio, 1987), but
we have no reason to believe that the present sample was inappropriate.
Similarly, the measures employed attempted to faithfully represent
the constructs described by SLT. The psychological maturity measure
was developed with care and appears to demonstrate reasonable levels
of reliability and validity. The measure of job maturity can be criticized
for being narrow in its scope, for example, focusing on job experience
alone; but, this aspect of job maturity is central to the concept as defined
by Hersey and Blanchard (1982) and thus provided at least a partial test
of this aspect of SLT. Use of the Hambleton, Blanchard, and Hersey
(1977) measure cannot be viewed as a more rigorous approach since that
measure has yet to demonstrate validity and reliability comparable to the
measures used here.
The measures of leader behavior and leader effectivenessalso appear
to be fair extrapolations of the theory as it is stated and were the same
as those used by Vecchio (1987). In addition, different respondents
provided the leader behavior, maturity, satisfaction, and performance
data which minimized method variance problems. Finally, the analyses
used to tes SLT attempted to give the hypotheses every chance to be
1
confirmed. Therefore, this study is considered a reasonable, though
certainly not definitive, test of the underlying assumptions of SLT.
In a larger sense, the conduct of this study revealed a number of
things about SLT that may be useful to future work in the area. The idea
of leader behavior and subordinate maturity interacting to predict leader
effectivenesscannot be abandoned prematurely. It was supported in one
instance here. This study also suggests that both managers and peers
could recognize psychological maturity in subordinates, and Hersey and
Blanchard (1982) present persuasive arguments for the potential impor-
tance of this concept. Given the few main effects for subordinate matu-
rity found in this study, it still may well be the case that the role of sub-
ordinate maturity is best understood in terms of interactions with leader
 WARREN BLANK ET AL. 595

actions. A number of issues concerning both maturity and leader be-

havior need to be resolved, however, before this understanding can be
advanced. For example, there is a high correlation between task and re-
lationship behavior (T = S O ) although this is not atypical for the LBDQ
(in the Vecchio, 1987, study these variables are correlated .52). These
behaviors were developed to determine the smallest number of dimen-
sions to describe leader behavior (Korman, 1966). Their significant rela-
tionship may reveal that the Hersey and Blanchard model oversimplifies
leadership by using these general dimensions. More complex formula-
tions of leader actions and their interactions with maturity deserve at-
tention.
When considering how to measure psychological maturity, its dimen-
sionality is not clearly defined in SLT. Discussions of the concept sug-
gest a multidimensional construct composed of aspects of achievement
motivation, commitment to work goals, and willingness to take respon-
sibility. The measure used in this work did not support multidimension-
ality. Questions also arise as to who should rate subordinate’s maturity.
Hersey and Blanchard (1982) suggest manager and self ratings of matu-
rity. In this work, peer ratings were used to avoid response-response bias
in tests of the hypotheses. Given the convergence of the manager and
self ratings with the peer ratings and the poor convergence of the man-
ager and self ratings (T = .06), peer ratings might be a better measure for
future research. Vecchio (1987) suggests the peer measure might simply
be a popularity index. However, in this study the peer measure corre-
lated strongly with managerial assessments of performance and with the
manager’s perception of maturity. This raises another issue about what
the maturity concept really means. Is it simply another way to character-
ize performance or perceived willingness to perform? Future research
on psychological maturity should address this issue.
SLT describes job maturity in terms of experience and knowledge.
This study did not find the experience component very useful, indicating
one might do well to concentrate on the knowledge component of job
maturity. In that the maturity constructs are central to SLT, these issues
need to be resolved. Before SLT can be adequately tested, measures
of psychological and job maturity need to be examined in a variety of
contexts. The psychological maturity measure used in this study shows
preliminary strength as a measure that might be of use for additional
research.
Furthermore, Hersey and Blanchard (1982) argue that subordinate
maturity is task specific. A subordinate may be mature on some tasks
and immature on others. The task focus in this research (i.e., resident
advisor duties) may not have been sufficientlyfocused. Future work will
596 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

want to examine SLT in terms of more specific subtasks. This is a self-

limiting strategy, however. If SLT is only predictive at a very specific
task level (e.g., bookkeeping versus report writing), its generalizability
may be too limited for it to be useful.
Future research also needs to consider a longitudinal analysis of the
interaction between leader behavior and subordinate maturity. Longitu-
dinal data is typically viewed as a richer source of analysis in behavioral
science research. In the case of SLT it may be important since SLT can
be interpreted as a within-group model that needs to be tested over time.
More research is needed to clarify the degree of contribution SLT
makes to our understanding of leadership. It does seem clear that sub-
ordinate maturity is an important situational variable to be considered
in leadership research. This study provides a measure to examine to fa-
cilitate that process. On the other hand, the singular fo.cus of SLT on
subordinate maturity may oversimplify the situational aspect of leader-
ship. Hersey and Blanchard (1982) acknowledge that they only focus on
one situational element to the exclusion of others. Yet they maintain
that subordinate maturity is a central factor. Future leadership research
needs to consider subordinate maturity along with other situational vari-
ables (e.g., position power, leader-member relations, etc.).
In conclusion, the present work raises questions about SLT. Funda-
mental measurement and design issues still need to be explored in order
to ascertain the validity of SLT. The present study is an additional step
in this process. A number of additional directions are suggested by this
work. The widespread acceptance and use of situational leadership the-
ory indicate it deserves more empirical attention.

REFERENCES

Argyris C. (1957). Personality and organization. New York: Harper and Row.
Blank W, Weitzel J, Blau G, Green SG. (1988). A measure of psychological maturity.
Group and Oqganization Studies. 13,225-238.
Cartwright D, Zander A (Eds.). (1960). Group dynamics: Research and theory (2nd ed.).
Evanston, I L Harper & Row.
Fiedler F. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In Berkowitz L (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press.
Fiedler F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York McGraw-Hill.
Graeff C. (1983). The situational leadership theory: A critical review. Academy ofMan-
agement Review, 8,285-291.
Halpin A. (1959). The leadership behavioral school superintendents. Chicago: Midwest
Administration Center.
Hambleton R, Blanchard K, Hersey P.(1977). Maturity scale-selfratingform. San Diego:
Learning Resources Corporation.
Hambleton RK, Gumpert R. (1982). The validity of Hersey and Blanchard’s theory of
leader effectiveness. Group and Organization Studies, 7,225-242.
 WARREN BLANK ET AL. 597

Hersey P, Blanchard K. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training and Development
Journal, 2 , 6 3 4 .
Hersey P, Blanchard K. (1982). Management of organizational behavior (4th ed.). Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hoelting E (1980). Resident student development. Normal, IL: National Entertainment
and Campus Activities Association, Illinois State University.
House RJ. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 16,321-339.
Katz D, Maccoby N, Morse N. (1950). Productivity supervision, and morale in an ofice
situation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
Kauffman J (Ed.). (1968). The student in higher education. New Haven, C T The Hazen
Foundation.
Kerr S, Schriesheim C. (1974). Consideration, initiating structure, and organizational
criteria: An update of Korman’s 1966 review. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 27, 555-
568.
Korman A. (1966). Consideration, initiating structure, and organizational criteria: A
review. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 66,394-361.
McClelland D, Atkinson J, Clark R, Lowell E. (1953). The achievement motive. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Nickerson D, Harrington J. (1971). The college student as counselor. Norvic, NY: Chronicle
Guidance.
Nunnally J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York McGraw Hill.
Runkel P, McGrath J. (1972). Research on human behavior: A systematic guide to method.
New York Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.
Smith F’, Kendall L, Hulin C. (1969). The measurement ofsatisfactionin workand retirement.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Stogdill R, Coons A (Eds.). (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement
(Research Monograph No. 88). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Bureau of
Business Research.
Vecchio R. (1987). Situational leadership theory: An examination of a prescriptive theory.
Journal ofApplied Psychology, 72,444-451.
Yukl G. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.