comparative value priorities of chinese and new zealand

misreading of the paper had significant effects on leadership studies and theory
development, leading to near complete abandonment of the study of traits, which are in
fact useful constructs in describing leaders and leadership.
Stogdill and his associates (e.g., Stogdill and Coons, 1957) at Ohio State University,
and also at the University of Michigan (Kahan and Katz, 1953; Likert, 1961; and Mann,
1965) started work that became identified as the Behavioural Theory of Leadership.
However, most of Stogdill’s publication referred to a contingency theory of leader
behaviour with the contingency being the type of organisation being led. Stogdill
identified two behavioural traits of leaders, the tendency to behave in ways that
supported relationship development or in ways that were task-accomplishment oriented,
frequently referred to as Consideration and Initiating Structure. Kerr, Schriesheim,
Murphy and Stogdill (1974) contributed to specification of the continuing value of this
theoretical approach, proposing ten propositions concerning contingencies influencing
the effects of Consideration and Initiating Structure, from which prescriptions of leader
behaviour for situational contingencies may be derived. Kerr, Schriesheim, Murphy and
Stogdill (1974: 73-74) found variables that significantly moderate relationships between
leader behaviour predictors, and satisfaction and performance criteria to be: subordinate
need for information, job level, subordinate expectations of leader behaviour, perceived
organizational independence, leader’s similarity of attitudes and behaviour to
managerial style of higher management, leader upward influence; and characteristics of
the task, including pressure and provision of intrinsic satisfaction. The article concludes
by presenting ten situational propositions, and linking them to form two general
postulates of leadership effectiveness.
Kerr et al. point out that in general situational contingency moderating variables are
interrelated, and the propositions discussing moderators cannot therefore be considered
to be independent of one another. Whether it is possible to control for the effects of
potential moderators not under investigation in a study is something leadership
researchers are still struggling with. In this study I add the moderating variable of values
across cultures. The assumption is made that the Kerr et al.’s particular moderating
situations are randomly distributed across the populations sampled and samples
employed.
43