Leadership and Substitutes for Leadership Among Professional and Nonprofessional Workers

In this article, the authors discuss their research on similarities and differences between professionals and nonprofessionals in their responses to managerial leadership behaviors and substitutes for leadership. Their study sample comprised workers at many organizational levels in several hospital and contract research organizations in the Southwest, and they used a multidimensional measure of professionalism to create subsamples of professionals and nonprofessionals. The authors used questionnaire data to test hypotheses regarding instrumental and supportive leadership behaviors and their substitutes. They found that role clarification and support from leaders were important predictors of workers'job satisfaction and organizational commitment for both subsamples, and that formal rules and procedures were an important supplement for instrumental leadership behaviors. Professionals differed from nonprofessionals in that intrinsically satisfying work tasks and importance placed on organizational rewards were strong substitutes for leaders' support. The authors conclude that worker professionalism is an important moderator variable for research on leadership and substitutes for leadership.

[1]  J. Miner The Uncertain Future of the Leadership Concept: Revisions and Clarifications , 1982, The Journal of applied behavioral science.

[2]  R. Osborn,et al.  Handbook of Organizational Design. Vol. 1: Adapting Organizations to Their Environments. , 1982 .

[3]  H. J. Arnold Moderator variables: A clarification of conceptual, analytic, and psychometric issues , 1982 .

[4]  P. M. Podsakoff Determinants of a Supervisor's use of rewards and punishmens: A literature review and suggestions for further research☆☆☆ , 1982 .

[5]  Bernard M. Bass,et al.  Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research , 1982 .

[6]  P. Dorfman,et al.  Substitutes for Leadership: Test of a Construct , 1981 .

[7]  J. D. Sherman,et al.  Generalizability of an Organizational Commitment Model , 1981 .

[8]  Jeffrey D. Ford,et al.  Departmental Context and Formal Structure as Constraints on Leader Behavior , 1981 .

[9]  Charles N. Greene,et al.  The Effects of Formalization on Professional Involvement: A Compensatory Process Approach. , 1981 .

[10]  Yoav Vardi,et al.  Relationships between job, organization, and career commitments and work outcomes—An integrative approach , 1980 .

[11]  C. Schriesheim,et al.  A Test of the Path-Goal Theory of Leadership and Some Suggested Directions for Future Research. , 1980 .

[12]  John M. Jermier,et al.  Leader Behavior in a Police Command Bureaucracy: A Closer Look at the Quasi-Military Model. , 1979 .

[13]  C. Kerr,et al.  Work in America : the decade ahead , 1979 .

[14]  John M. Jermier,et al.  Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement , 1978 .

[15]  R. Miles,et al.  Leader Effectiveness In Small Bureaucracies , 1977 .

[16]  Steven Kerr,et al.  Issues in the study of “professionals” in organizations: The case of scientists and engineers , 1977 .

[17]  Frank R. Hunsicker Contingency Approaches to Leadership , 1976 .

[18]  T. Mitchell,et al.  PATH-GOAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP , 1975 .

[19]  Henry L. Tosi Organizational behavior and management;: A contingency approach , 1974 .

[20]  Richard H. Hall,et al.  Professionalization and Bureaucratization , 1968 .

[21]  The Organizational Society. , 1979 .