Leadership Behavior Style, Individual Receptivity to Change, and Implementation Efforts: a Follow-Up Study of Workshop Participants.

Abstract

A follow-up research design, involving counselor self-evaluation, an outside expert's assessments, and on-site interviews, was used with Life Career Development System (LCDS) Facilitator's Workshop participants from Georgia between 1975 and 1978 to identify factors classifying counselors as "Low," "Moderate," and "High" implementors. Counselors completed an instrument consisting of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), the Schulze Short Dogmatism Scale, and researcher-designed demographic questions and semantic differentials. An outside expert's responses to overall LCDS program implementation success were compared to those of the counselors. No significant differences were found, thus providing credibility to the counselors' self-evaluations. Researcher-conducted on-site interviews also provided support for the formal data analyses. Significant differences were found among the Low, Moderate, and High implementors on the relationships between gender, employment length, implementor preparedness level, initial, subsequent, and current implementation efforts, and program implementation success. Moderate and High Group members (predominantly female) tended to be employed longer, be more prepared to implement the LCDS program, and have expended greater initial, subsequent, and current program implementors than Low Group members. LBDQ score analyses indicated significant differences among the three groups. High and Moderate Group members tended to score high on both the Initiating Structure and Consideration scales of the LBDQ; the Low Group's scores tended to reflect their dissimilarity from the other groups. Although the relationship between individual receptivity to change (the dogmatism measure) and program implementation success was not significant, the data suggest that the High and Moderate Groups may have been operating at a different stage of the program change process from the Low Group, i.e., the Low Group was still in the initiation stage while the other two groups had progressed to the implementation stage. On-site interview data suggested that the High and Moderate Groups tended to accept the assigned leadership role and organize themselves and their co-workers and supervisors to assure implementation success. The Low Group appeared to be less personally motivated and willing, and to be hindered by their work relationships and environment. Profiles for the groups, implications for counseling, and suggestions for further research were also provided in the study.