Dynamics of leaders' and subordinates' performance-related discussions following monitoring by leaders in group meetings

DYNAMICS OF LEADERS’ AND SUBORDINATES’ PERFORMANCE-RELATED DISCUSSIONS FOLLOWING MONITORING

BY LEADERS IN GROUP MEETINGS

Sonia M. Gob* University of Notre Dame

The present study examined interactions following performance monitoring by leaders in group meetings. Discussions between leaders and subordinates during 28 Reserve Officers’ Training Corps

meetings at a private Midwestern university were videotaped and transcribed. Lag-sequential analyses

of these interactions indicated that leaders’ monitoring of performance during group meetings

stimulated subordinates to make positive, negative, and neutral reports of their own performances,

but primarily negative reports of others’ performances. Leaders were likely to follow subordinates’

negative reports of their own performances with negative consequences and subordinates’ positive

reports of others’ performances with positive consequences. The present study suggests that

interactions following performance monitoring by leaders in group settings are affected both by actual

and perceived self-presentation biases.

When the interactions of individuals involved in group discussions have been examined, actual group dynamics have been found to be very different from managers’perceptions of them. In a study by Bertsch and Obradovic (1979), for example, managers believed subordinates participated in and influenced the direction of group discussions much more than they actually did. As these findings illustrate, it is important to observe the interactions of leaders and subordinates. This method offers a number of advantages. First, it allows precise tracking of actual behavior (Courtright, Fairhurst, & Rogers, 1989). In addition, it avoids relying solely on perceptions affected by selective memory, social desirability, and implicit theories (e.g., Eden & Leviaton, 1975; Ericsson

*Direct all correspondence to: Sonia M. Goltz, Department of Management, University of Notre Dame,

Notre Dame, IN 46556.

Leadership Quarterly, 4(2), 173-187.

Copyright Q 1993 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

ISSN: 1048-9843

174 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 4 No. 2 1993

& Simon, 1980; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). Examining leader-subordinate interactions

also makes it possible to determine whether, as has been suggested, both parties in a relationship actively and continuously influence one another (Bandura, 1986). Finally, studying social interactions can have important practical implications because functional and dysfunctional patterns can be identified and leadership effectiveness can be improved (Fairhurst, Rogers, & Sarr, 1987).

It could be argued that it is important not only to examine leader-subordinate interactions but also to examine them in group contexts. Organizations largely consist of permanent and temporary groups (Huse & Cummings, 1985), and most managers spend significant amounts of time in group meetings (Seibold, 1979). Furthermore, as noted by Bass (1990) describing leaders’ and subordinates’ one-on-one relationships, while conceptually pleasing, is not always empirically fruitful. Researchers also need to examine effects occurring in groups that may transcend what occurs one-on-one.

For a number of reasons, behaviors between leaders and subordinates may be different in a group setting than in a dyadic context. First, limited time as well as equity considerations by leaders in group meetings may serve to decrease the range and number of leader-individual interactions (Bass, 1990). Thus, leaders may carefully select the types of communications they will emphasize in group settings. Second, subordinates and leaders may react differently to each other when they are in a group than when they are alone (Bass, 1990). For example, subordinates may be less likely to report poor performance in a group setting than when alone with the leader. In addition, leaders have been found to be uncomfortable with certain behaviors when performed in a group context, such as distributing rewards to subordinates (Shriver, 1952). Finally, group meetings provide a rich setting for studying leader and subordinate behaviors because of the increased number and variety of relationships found in them (Bass, 1990). In contrast to leader-subordinate dyads, in which one and only one person can respond to the other, a number of people can respond to a comment in a group meeting, a number of people can respond to that response, and so on. Also, in a group setting, both subordinates and leaders are less likely to focus exclusively on a single subordinate’s performance and more likely to discuss the performance of a number of people.

As an illustration of how a group context could theoretically alter effects found, consider a recent laboratory investigation which examined interactions following the monitoring of subordinate performance by leaders (see Komaki & Citera, 1990). This study was designed to examine why levels of monitoring by leaders, a relatively infrequent behavior (Jensen & Komaki, 1993; Komaki, 1986; Komaki, Zlotnick, & Jensen, 1986), had been found in previous research to be associated with leader effectiveness (Komaki, 1986). Results of the examination of interactions in leader- subordinate dyads in this study indicated that performance monitoring by leaders stimulated subordinates to make performance-related communications. Subordinates’ performance-related communications, in turn, served as the basis for timely and appropriate consequences from managers. While the laboratory nature of this study clearly limits its generalizability, there are also reasons to expect differences in the effects found had leaders and subordinates been observed not only in a real-world setting but also in group situations. It might be expected that subordinates would respond somewhat differently to the monitoring of leaders, for example, if they had a history of working together and expectations for an ongoing relationship, and if the interactions

Performance Communications 175

observed had been in the presence of other subordinates. Similarly, leaders might respond differently to the performance reports of subordinates in the presence of other subordinates.

First, in a group setting, subordinates might be likely to respond to leaders’ monitoring behavior by reporting on positive, rather than negative, aspects of their performance. Leniency effects in self-reports of performance (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988; Thornton, 1980) suggest this might occur in dyadic relationships. In group situations, however, self-presentation behaviors should be stronger. In the Komaki and Citera (1990) investigation, which focused on leader-subordinate dyads, the nature of performance reports that followed leader monitoring was not examined. However, the present investigation occurred in a group context and the potential effects of this context on performance-related discussions were examined by looking at the nature of subordinates’ performance reports. It was predicted that monitoring by leaders would be followed primarily by subordinates’ reports of positive, rather than negative, aspects of their performance.

Second, in a group setting, subordinates might respond to leader monitoring by reporting others’ performance as well as their own. Group meetings typically do not focus on the performance of a single individual, but on the responsibilities and roles of a number of individuals. The possibility that leader monitoring elicits reports of others’ performance was not examined in the Komaki and Citera (1990) study. However, since the present study examined group meetings, it was expected that leader monitoring would stimulate subordinates to report not only their own performance but also the performance of others.

Third, since leaders are often uncomfortable with distributing rewards to subordinates in a group context (Shriver, 1952), they may tone down any positive or negative reactions to subordinates’ performance when in a group meeting. Thus, in this setting, most consequences provided by leaders may be neutral in nature. While results of the Komaki and Citera (1990) study did not indicate the nature of consequences provided by leaders, it was important to examine leaders’ consequences more closely in the present study, given the potential effects of the group setting on the nature of leaders’ consequences. Thus, the sign of consequences provided by leaders (positive, negative, neutral) was measured to determine whether neutral consequences predominated.

Finally, in contrast to the results of the Komaki & Citera (1990) investigation, when leaders are observed in group situations, they may not be likely to follow subordinates’ reports of performance immediately with consequences. Time constraints of group meetings in combination with the substantially increased number and complexity of potential interactions might not allow leaders to spend a large amount of time providing consequences for performance. Also, leaders might believe that providing consequences to individuals during group meetings will upset the perception of equity in the group. This is not to say, however, that leaders will not be motivated to provide the types of consequences they feel are necessary for effective performance. Fisher (1979) found that leaders provide feedback to lower-performing subordinates with less delay than feedback to higher-performing subordinates, in an effort to improve the lower- performing subordinates’ performance. Therefore, while leaders might avoid providing consequences following positive or neutral performance reports in a group setting, they


might still immediately follow reports of poor performance with negative consequences,

even in a group context. Given the above questions concerning the effects of leader monitoring that occurs

in group situations, the present investigation examined dynamics typical of actual leader-subordinate interactions following leader monitoring during group meetings.

Communications of leaders and subordinates in organizational meetings of a Reserve Officers’ Training Corps were recorded and coded using an established categorization system of performance-related communications. Patterns of communications following leader monitoring were then examined, providing a rich, detailed, and realistic picture of what happens when leaders monitor in a group context. Based on the preceding

discussion, it was expected that:

1. Leaders’ monitoring would stimulate subordinates to report positive aspects of their own past and current performance;

2 Leaders’ monitoring would stimulate subordinates to report others’ past and

current performance; 3. Leaders would tend to provide mostly neutral consequences; and 4. Subordinates’ negative reports of their own performance would stimulate leaders

to provide immediate negative consequences.

METHOD

Subjects and Setting

Subjects were professional staff and students participating in organizational meetings of a Reserve Officers’ Training Corps on the campus of a private Midwestern university. Meetings involved leaders and subordinates from all levels of the organization, including top-level professional staff (e.g., the battalion commander) as well as freshman students.

Both men and women were leaders, as well as subordinates. In all, 28 meetings were recorded, which involved 8 different leaders (5 men, 3 women; 2 members of the professional staff, 6 student leaders).

Since most members of ROTC participate in the organization during their four years at college, ongoing working relationships existed among the subjects in this study. All student members began their four-year tenure with the organization in subordinate positions within the various activities of the organization. Students were expected to reach a leadership position during their third or fourth year. The student leaders

observed in the present study had reached that position.

Nature of Meetings

After the organization provided the researcher with a list of 11 types of regularly held meetings, those meetings which primarily consisted of interactions between the leader and subordinates were selected to be videotaped. (Videotaping was chosen over audiotaping since it was expected that having a record of the speakers’facial expressions, hand movements, and so forth would enhance the accuracy of written transcriptions of meetings, as well as the coding of communications.) Any meetings which involved


primarily drills, speakers, or class-like instruction (n = 3) were not videotaped. Meetings sometimes concerned the participation of organizational members in mandatory activities, such as drills and physical fitness training. At other times, they consisted of the planning and evaluation of service-oriented, fundraising, entertainment, or recruitment activities, such as blood drives, tee-shirt sales, volleyball tournaments, and information fairs. Meetings lasted from 5 minutes, 40 seconds to 45 minutes, 45 seconds, with the average length being 24 minutes, 4 seconds.

Procedure

Before any meetings were recorded, all members of the organization received a written explanation of the general purpose of the investigation, as well as assurances of confidentiality of individual communications and behaviors. Leaders were told that they could ask that the videotaping be stopped during any sensitive portions of the meeting. (However, at no time was this option exercised.) Furthermore, members were asked to try to conduct business as if the videotaping were not occurring. A designated contact person in the organization provided the researcher with meeting locations and times. On arriving at each meeting, the videotaper (either the author, or a trained, advanced undergraduate) videotaped the meeting from an unobtrusive location which allowed the best perspective for videotaping the meeting.

Data Measurement and Analysis

The videotaped meetings were coded using the Operant Superior-Subordinate Taxonomy and Index (OSSTI) and an interval-recording procedure, similar to that used in Komaki and Citera (1990). For each 5-second interval, the coder identified: (1) whether the leader or subordinate was speaking, and (2) the appropriate category for that person’s communication. Thus, a continuous, sequential record was obtained for interactions between the leader and his or her subordinates. (See Table 1 for an example.)

The OSSTI was refined for the purposes of the present study. First, categories were added for subordinate communications about others' performance, since it was thought that, in a group context, subordinates’ discussions would focus on both their own performance and the performance of others. Also, individuals’ statements about own and other performance were further classified as conveying expectations of their performance, conveying knowledge of their performance, or collecting information about their performance. (For definitions and examples of the categories used, see Table 2.) Finally, in the present study, “consequences” were coded as being positive, negative, or neutral (see definitions and examples in Table 3), in order to ascertain the nature of consequences found in a group context.

lnterrater Reliability Coders received 60 hours of training on the OSSTI using videotapes obtained from

a previous laboratory study (Komaki & Citera, 1990). Also, a small number of ROTC meetings were videotaped solely for the purpose of training. During training, raters and the author resolved differences in interpretations and categorizations of communications in an effort to increase interrater reliability.


Table 1 Excerpts of Verbatim Conversation from a Group Meeting

Timr Speaker Stntement Category”

6:lS Leader:

620 Subordinate I:

6:25 Leader:

Subordinate I :

7:30

7:35

12:oo

12:05

Leader:

Subordinate 2:

Leader: ‘Cause Carl isn’t going to return ‘til Sunday.

Subordinate 2: I gave her a copy today.

Leader: Good.

Subordinate 3: Urn. National Security Weekend Team T-shirts.

Leader: We got those.

Subordinate 3:

Subordinate 3:

Leader:

A suggestion was made for an ice skating night.

Oh, that would be really fun.

And if you’re-if we’re going to do it, we’ve got to

get it soon.

Right.

IJm. Did you get a copy of the attendance to

Sharon?

Uh huh.

Alright.

Where did you get them?

We had some. Urn, because they’re not very high

ranked-sorry to say that.

Work-related

Work-related

Other Antecedent

Work-related

Other Monitor

Own Consequence

(neutral)

Work-related

Own Consequence

(neutral)

Other Consequence

(positive)

Work-reiated

Other Consequence

(neutral)

Work-related

Work-related

Work-related

NOW * Categories with communications concerning another’s performance begin with “other” (e.g., other consequence):

categories with communications concerning one’s own performance begin with “own” (e.g., own consequence).

During the data-coding phase of the study, 10% (n = 3) of the videotaped meetings were coded independently by at least two of the coders for purposes of calculating reliability. Reliability was defined as an interval-by-interval percentage agreement score. This is the standard determination of reliability for observations involving the coding

of behavior during intervals (Baer, 1977; Kelly, 1977; Miller, 1980), as well as the method reported in previous studies using the OSSTI (e.g., Komaki, Zlotnick, & Jensen, 1986; Komaki & Citera, 1990). Using this method, reliability is calculated as [(number of agreements) + (number of intervals coded)] X 100. Average interrater reliability was 69.45%.

lag-s~uenfial Analysis For the present investigation, the nature of exchanges between leaders and

subordinates was examined using the lag-sequential approach. In this method, the likelihood that an event (event B) follows another event (criterion event A) within a

Petformance Communications

Table 2 Definitions From the Operant Superior-Subordinate Taxonomy and Index

179

Category Definition Examples

Others’ Performance

Consequences

Monitors

Antecedents

Own Performance

Consequences

Monitors

Antecedents

Individual communicates knowledge “Nobody did it for the PFT. I didn’t of another’s performance get any letters.”

Individual collects information about “Did anyone come and talk to you at another’s performance.

Individual instructs, reminds, or

conveys an expectation of

performance to another.

Individual communicates knowledge

of his/ her own performance.

Individual collects information

about his/ her own performance.

Individual conveys an expectation

of his/ her own performance.

Non-performance-related Communications

Work-related Individual refers to work issues

but not to performance.

“University policy is that you are not allowed to conduct business in dorm

rooms or residence halls.”

Non-work-related

Not Speaking

Individual interacts with another “I have three papers due this week and

but does not discuss work issues. one paper due next week.”

Individual is not speaking. Manager is listening to a subordinate.

least?” .

“Make sure that includes a revised

dining-in budget.”

“I went over it a little bit in class.”

“Didn’t I tell you what I told him?”

“Ill probably talk to Greg about it.”

specified time period is called its lag probability. Lzg probabilities for events are compared with their expected probabilities (defined as the likelihood that the event will follow any event within a certain time period) using the binomial z-test (Sackett, 1977; 1978). When lag probabilities are significantly lower than expected probabilities, the occurrence of event A signals the decreased likelihood that event B will follow; when lag probabilities are significantly higher than expected probabilities, the occurrence of

event A signals the increased likelihood that event B will follow. For the present investigation, a lag of 1 was used, which was defined as the occurrence

of event B in the Ssecond interval immediately after a given event. (This particular interval was chosen for two reasons. First, the predictions concerned the nature of immediate communications [see prediction 4, for example]. Second, the use of this interval would allow comparisons to be made with the findings of Komaki & Citera (1990) who used this interval.) Therefore, lag probability was calculated as the number of times event B occurred in the Ssecond interval immediately following the occurrence of event A divided by the total number of times event A occurred overall. Expected


Table 3 Definitions and Examples of Different Types of Consequences

Category Definition Examples

Positive Consequences

Neutral Consequences

Negative Consequences

Expressing favorable

evaluations or approval

Other:

Own:

Expressing neither Other: approval nor disapproval

Own:

Conveying disapproval or Other: “She really hadn’t gotten in contact

doubt about work or noting with them yet as to exactly how

work that hasn’t been done much per person.”

Own: “Maybe 1 haven’t got the list right,

then.”

“Greg did a good job of trying to get the announcements across.”

“And I’m doing it [running] twice a

day.”

“I know they’re working close with Sgt. Tracker to see who’s eligible to

run.”

“I did that at camp, too.”

probability was calculated as the number of times event B occurred in the 5-second interval immediately following the occurrence of any event divided by the total number of events overall. (Since this definition excludes only those event Bs which occur first during an exchange, the expected probability for a given event is equivalent to or slightly

lower than its overall percentage of occurrence.)

RESULTS

Descriptive Analyses

Slightly more than half of leaders’ indications of knowledge of others’ performance (i.e., consequences) were neutral in content (51.6%), confirming the expectation that leaders would provide primarily neutral consequences in a group context. Negative and positive consequences occurred less frequently (negative = 23.7%; positive = 24.7%). Interestingly, similar percentages were found when subordinates’ indications of knowledge of others’pet-formance were analyzed (negative = 25.4%; neutral = 55%; positive = 19.6%).

For exploratory purposes, the nature of indications of knowledge of one’s own performance was also examined. Leaders’ indications of knowledge of their own performance were predominantly neutral in content (88.1%), with negative and positive communications occurring at relatively low rates (8.8% and 3. I%, respectively). Again, subordinates’ communications in this category occurred at similar rates as those of leaders (negative = 9.1%; neutral = 82.3%; positive = 8.6%).

Sequential Analyses

In the sequential analyses, expected and lag probabilities were compared using the binomial z-test. ’


Table 4 Lag Probability of Event B Following Leader Monitoring (Event A)

Event B

Subordinate reports of own past or current performance

positive

neutral

negative

total

Expected Observed

.004 ,028

,043 .I04

.005 ,024

.053 ,156

z

6.01*

5.12* 4.82*

7.72*

Subordinate reports of others’past

or current performance

positive

neutral

negative

total

,vore: * p < .OOl level of significance.

.032 ,052 1.92

.090 ,055 -2.05

,041 .I56 9.75* .I63 .263 4.59s

Subordinate Communications Following Leader Monitoring

As can be seen in Table 4, following leaders’ monitoring communications, the observed lag probability for subordinates’ communications about their own past or current performance (i.e., “consequences”) was significantly higher than the expected probability for this category.2 Similarly, following leader monitoring, the observed lag probability for subordinates’communications about others' past or current performance was significantly higher than the expected probability for this category (see Table 4). Thus, results confirmed expectations that leader monitoring would tend to stimulate

subordinates to discuss others’ past and current performance as well as their own. In contrast, results of exploratory analyses indicated that leader monitoring did not tend to stimulate subordinates to make either of the other types of performance-related

communications concerning themselves or others-that is, discussions of their own future performance (expected = .032; observed = ,010; z = -2.07); collections of information about their performance (expected = .0004; observed = .OOOO; z = -.34); discussions of others’ future performance (expected = .086; observed = ,076; z = -.62); collections of information about others’ performance (expected = .015; observed = .014; z = -. 12)l.

When subordinates’ reports of their performance were categorized as being negative, positive, or neutral in content, results indicated that, following leader monitoring, the observed lag probabilities for all three types of reports were higher than their expected probabilities, as indicated in Table 4. Thus, results did not support the expectation that leaders’ monitoring would stimulate subordinates to report primarily positive aspects of their current and past performance.

For exploratory purposes, similar analyses were performed to determine the nature of subordinates’ reports of others’ performance following leader monitoring. As can be seen in Table 4, only the observed probability of subordinates’ negative reports of others’ performance was significantly higher than its expected probability. Thus, while

Tab

le

5 L

ag P

roba

bilit

y of

Lea

ders

’ P

rovi

sion

of

Con

sequ

ence

s to

Oth

ers

Fol

low

ing

Eve

nt

B

Pos

itiv

e C

onse

quen

ces

Net

ural

Con

sequ

ence

s

Exp

ecte

d O

bser

ved

z E

xpec

ted

Obs

erve

d z

Neg

ativ

e C

onse

quen

ces

Exp

ecte

d O

bser

ved

z

Tot

al

Exp

ecte

d O

bser

ved

z

Su

bo

rdin

ate

rep

ort

s o

f o

wn

pas

t o

r cu

rren

t p

erfo

rman

ce

posi

tive

,026

0

-.99

,0

55

0 -1

.45

,025

,0

56

1.15

,1

07

,056

-1

.00

neut

ral

.026

,0

17

-1.0

3 .0

55

.044

-.

94

.025

,0

12

-I .6

2 ,1

07

,073

-2

.05

nega

tive

,026

,0

53

1.01

,0

55

0 -1

.49

,025

.1

05

3.14

* .I

07

.I58

I .

02

tota

l ,0

26

.019

-.

91

0.55

,0

36

-1.7

1 ,0

25

,024

-.

I7

.I07

.O

79

-1.8

2

Su

bo

rdin

ate

rep

ort

s o

f o

ther

s’

pas

t o

r cu

rren

t p

erfo

rman

ce

posi

tive

,026

.0

68

4.09

**

,055

,0

41

-1.6

0 ,0

25

,016

-.

95

.I07

.I35

1.47

ne

utra

l .0

26

,030

.5

9 ,0

55

,040

-1

.76

.025

.0

16

-1.6

2 ,1

07

,073

-2

.92*

nega

tive

,026

.0

40

1.55

.0

55

,034

-1

.67

,025

.0

03

-2.5

5 .I0

7 .0

77

-1.7

3

tota

l ,0

26

.040

3.

03*

.05S

.O

4 I

-2.2

5 ,0

25

.013

-2

.90*

..I

07

,094

-1

.48

hh?X

*

p <

.OI l

evel

of

sign

ific

ance

. **

p <

40

leve

l of

sign

ific

ance

.


leader monitoring does stimulate subordinates to discuss both their own and others’ performance, subordinates appear to provide a more balanced picture of their own performance than of others’ performance.

Leader Communications Following Subordinate Performance Reports

When consequences provided by leaders were categorized as being negative, neutral, or positive in nature, it was found that subordinates’ negative communications of their past or current performance stimulated leaders to provide negative consequences more than would be expected based on the overall frequency of leaders’ provision of consequences (see Table 5). This result is consistent with the expectation that leaders would follow subordinates’ reports of their own poor performance immediately with negative consequences, even in a group situation. No other differences between expected and lag probabilities were found to be significant.3

For exploratory purposes, similar sequential analyses were conducted using subordinates’ reports of others’ performance. As can be seen Table 5, this resulted in the interesting finding that when subordinates made positive comments about others’ past and current performance, leaders provided more positive consequences than would be expected based on the overall frequency of their provision of positive consequences. No other differences between expected and lag probabilities were found to be significant.

DISCUSSION

Results of the present investigation suggest that, to understand leadership processes, it is important to examine actual leader-subordinate interactions. Leader monitoring was examined in the context of group meetings, and a number of interesting effects

emerged. First, it was observed that leader monitoring in actual work situations can take a

number of forms. The monitoring process does not necessarily involve the asking of straightforward questions about performance by leaders, as might be thought. In the present investigation, some leaders’ communications did clearly ask about specific performance (e.g., “Did you get your reports from Debbie?“; “So, did any of the flight commanders take their 20 or not?“). However, leaders often monitored by starting a statement which the subordinate was expected to complete, such as “And the Taekwondo people . . . .” Sometimes leaders clarified or expanded on something that the subordinate had said, at which time the subordinate could either affirm or correct it, such as “they know to wear or come in some semblance of an outfit . . . OK.” At other times, leaders’ monitoring consisted of either very cryptic or general questions, and a subordinate could easily have not responded with a performance report (e.g., “Do you have anything for me?“; “Is that it?“; “Ten teams?“; and “Is it working?“).

Results also indicated that leader monitoring in an actual work setting stimulates subordinates both to discuss their own performance and to report what they know of others’ performance. Following leaders’monitoring, communications about others’past and current performance occurred more frequently than would be expected based on the overall rate of these communications. Thus, the effectiveness that has been associated with leader monitoring in past studies ( e.g., Komaki, 1986) may arise, in part from the multiple sources of performance information often available to a leader who actively


monitors. For any particular subordinate, the leader is likely to have performance information that was obtained through his/ her own observations, through self-reports provided by the subordinate in question, and through reports of performance provided by other subordinates. These multiple sources enable the availability of a sufficient amount of performance information, as well as the verifiability of that information.

Results indicated the presence of self-presentation biases in the group meetings when individuals discussed their own and others’ performance. Subordinates made positive, negative, and neutral reports of their own performance but primarily negative reports of others’ performance following leader monitoring. In addition, leaders and subordinates presented more extreme informationPboth positive and negative-about others than about themselves, perhaps in an attempt to enhance their own image relative to that of others. Communications about own performance were overwhelmingly neutral in nature @O-90%), while only about half of communications indicating knowledge of others’ performance were neutral. Thus, while results did not confirm the prediction that subordinates would respond to leaders’monitoring in group meetings by reporting primarily positive aspects of their own performance, self-presentation biases appeared to occur in other forms.

The group setting of the present investigation was the basis for the prediction that

the consequences leaders provided would primarily be neutral in nature. Half of all consequences provided by leaders were neutral, confirming the prediction. However, it should be noted that substantial numbers of both negative and positive consequences were also provided and that these types of consequences were provided at relatively equal rates. Future research might directly and systematically examine how the presence of additional numbers of subordinates affects the distribution of positive, negative, and neutral consequences provided by leaders.

Given various aspects of group meetings, including the need to meet time limits and satisfy equity considerations, it was thought that leaders would be selective about following reports about performance with performance consequences. Results confirmed this expectation in that leaders chose to follow subordinates’ self-reports of poor performance immediately with negative consequences and subordinates’ positive reports of others’ performance immediately with positive consequences. This combination of findings suggests that leaders’responses may arise from their perceptions that self-presentation biases exist in reports of performance in group meetings. In other words, leaders may expect that, for self-presentation reasons, subordinates will not be motivated to report negative aspects of their own performance and positive aspects of others’ performance. Thus, when they do make these reports during a group meeting, leaders may assume performance was extreme (either very good or very bad) and believe an immediate response is important, regardless of time or equity considerations. These results suggest that examining leaders’ attributions for subordinates’ statements about performance might be an interesting avenue for future research.

In summary, the observation of sequences of leaders’ and subordinates’ performance- related communications during group meetings resulted in a number of interesting findings, some of which may have been due to the public nature of group meetings. When providing performance information, subordinates appeared to make efforts to present themselves in a favorable light relative to other workers. In addition, leaders’ responses to subordinates’ provision of performance information appeared to have been


based on expectations of self-presentation biases from subordinates. Results indicate

that leader-subordinate dynamics following leader monitoring, particularly in group

meetings, are somewhat more complex than has been suggested in past research (e.g.,

Komaki & Citera, 1990).

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Funding for this study was provided by a Jesse H. Jones faculty research grant and

a research grant from the Gallo Foundation. Appreciation is extended to Maryalice

Citera, Judi Komaki, and anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier drafts ’ of the manuscript, as well to John Ashby, John O’Neal Beanum, Jennifer Becker,

Carolyn Bilski, and Monica Martinez for transcribing and coding the data. Further

information can be obtained from Sonia M. Goltz, Department of Management,

University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556.

NOTES

1. Three guidelines for using the z-test with lag-sequential data have been proposed by Ting-

Toomey (1983) based on Gottman (1979) and Sackett (1977, 1978): (1) the z-score must exceed

f1.96 to be considered significant at the .05 level; (2) lag probabilities should be twice as large

as the expected probabilities; (3a) the lag behavior (with respect to the criterion-that is, event

A) should have been observed to occur at least 10 or more times; and (3b) the base rate of the

criterion behaviors should compose at least 5% of the entire data set. It should be noted that,

in the present study, the data did not always meet all these criteria. For example, the base rate

of the criterion behavior of leaders’ other monitors was 3.7%, violating the second part of the

third guideline; and the expected lag probability of subordinates’ discussions of others’

performance following leaders’ monitors was .27 while the observed probability was .36, violating

the second guideline. The decision to perform the z-tests was based on the facts that, first,

deviations from the guidelines were usually not found to be substantial, and second, the low

frequencies of the key events in this study mirror the actual frequencies found in other settings

(Komaki, 1986; Komaki, Zlotnick, & Jensen, 1986). However, the lag-sequential results should

be considered exploratory and interpreted with these guidelines in mind.

2. In the present investigation, results were examined by further classifying subordinates’

“own performance” communications as being discussions of future performance (“antecedents”),

inquiries about performance (“monitors”) or reports of past or current performance

(“consequences”), unlike the Komaki & Citera (1990) investigation, in which they were combined.

However, results using the combined category are similar, paralleling results found in Komaki

and Citera (1990). Following leaders’ monitoring communications, the observed lag probability

for subordinates’ communications about their own performance (. 172) was significantly higher

than the expected probability (.085) for this category (z = 5.3 1; pe < .OOl).

3. Results using combined data (i.e., all types of leader consequences following all types of

own performance-related discussions by subordinates), as was done in Komaki and Citera (1990),

indicated that leaders did not provide consequences following subordinates’ communications

concerning their own performance significantly more than could be expected based on the overall

frequency of leaders’ provision of consequences (observed = ,065; expected = ,107; z = -3.50;

p < ,001).


REFERENCES

Baer, D.M. (1977). Just because it’s reliable doesn’t mean that you can use it. Journal of&plied Behavior Analysis, IO, 117-119.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial

applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press. Bertsch, G.K., & Obradovic, J. (1979). Participation and influence in Yugoslav self-management.

Industrial Relations, 18, 322-329.

Courtright, J.A., Fairhurst, G.T., & Rogers, L.E. (1989). Interaction patterns in organic and mechanistic systems. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 773-802.

Eden, D., & Leviaton, U. (1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 736-741.

Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215-

251.

Fairhurst, G.T., Rogers, L.E., & Sarr, R.A. (1987). Manager-subordinate control patterns and judgements about the relationship. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication Yearbook

IO, 395415. Beverly Hills, California: Sage. Fisher, C.D. (1979). Transmission of positive and negative feedback to subordinates: A laboratory

investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(5), 533-540.

Gottman, J.M. (1979). Marital interactions. New York: Academic Press. Harris, M.M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-

supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43-62.

Huse, E., & Cummings, T. (1985). Organization development and change (3rd ed.). St. Paul: West Publishing.

Jensen, M., & Komaki, J.L. (1993). Beware of too many directives: Spotting a suppressor variable in the operant model of effective supervision. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco.

Kelly, M.B. (1977). A review of the observational data-collection and reliability procedures reported in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior

Analysis, 10, 97-101.

Komaki, J.L. (1986). Toward effective supervision: An operant analysis and comparison of managers at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 270-278.

Komaki, J.L., & Citera, M. (1990). Beyond effective supervision: Identifying key interactions between superior and subordinate. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 91-105.

Komaki, J.L., Zlotnick, S., & Jensen, M.J. (1986). Development of an operant-based taxonomy and observational index. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 260-269.

Miller, L.K. (1980). Principles of everyday behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/ Cole Publishing Company.

Nisbett, R.E., & Wilson, T.D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.

Sackett, G.P. (1977). The lag sequential analysis of contingency and cyclicity in behavioral interaction research. In J. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Sackett, G.P. (1978). Measurement in observational research. In G.P. Sackett (Ed.), Observing behavior: Data collection and analysis methods, Vol. 2. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Seibold, D.R. (1979). Making meetings more successful: Plans, formats, and procedures for group problem solving. Journal of Business Communications, 16. 3-20.


Shriver, B. (1952). The behavioral effects of changes in ascribed leadership status in small groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.

Thornton, G.C. (1980). Psychometric properties of self-appraisals of job performance. Personnel

Psychology, 33, 263-27 1.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1983). An analysis of verbal communication patterns in high and low marital adjustment groups. Human Communication Research, 9, 306-3 19.

Dynamics of leaders' and subordinates' performance-related discussions following monitoring by leaders in group meetings

Documents