Note on the methodology of the Graen, Orris, and Alvares studies testing the contingency model

Abstract

Discusses some methodological shortcomings of the study by G. Graen, J. Orris, and K. Alvares (see PA, Vol. 46:Issue 4) on the contingency model. The critique points out that (a) the position power manipulation was probably ineffective and at best very weak; (b) differences between supposedly structured and unstructured tasks were unnecessarily small, especially since other tasks were readily available; and (c) an analysis of variance of leader Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) scores yielded a highly significant F ratio indicating that some octants in the 2nd study contained primarily high LPC leaders while others contained primarily low LPC leaders. In view of their methodological inadequacies, it is concluded that the experiments did not constitute an adequate test of the contingency model. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)