Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lueder, D. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Don't Be Misled by LEAD

Donald C. Lueder

Center of Excellence at Tennessee State University, Nashville, Tennessee 37203.

Recently, many researchers have used Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard's Leader Effectiveness and Description instrument of self-perception (LEAD-Self) to measure leadership styles. This may be unfortunate because this instrument appears to have certain confounding variables associated with it, variables that can affect the data and thus lead to questionable results. The author hypothesizes that the vast majority of LEAD-Self instrument respondents consistently score in the high task/high relationship leadership style category, and he suspects that this clustering of scores results from self-deception by the respondents. In a study of doctoral students in educational administration training groups in the Northeast and Midwest, a significantly high number of responses -69% -fell into the high task/high relationship category. These respondents apparently "knew" how they should or wanted to score, and they responded accordingly. The results of this study indicate that the LEAD Self instrument is an inappropriate tool for measuring leadership style.

The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 21, No. 2, 143-151 (1985)
DOI: 10.1177/002188638502100205
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
R. P. Vecchio, R. C. Bullis, and D. M. Brazil
The Utility of Situational Leadership Theory: A Replication in a Military Setting
Small Group Research, October 1, 2006; 37(5): 407 - 424.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
L. R. Anderson
Toward a Two-Track Model of Leadership Training: Suggestions from Self-Monitoring Theory
Small Group Research, May 1, 1990; 21(2): 147 - 167.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Group Organization ManagementHome page
J. R. Goodson, G. W. McGee, and J. F. Cashman
Situational Leadership Theory: A Test of Leadership Prescriptions
Group Organization Management, December 1, 1989; 14(4): 446 - 461.
[Abstract]