AN ASSESSMENT OF THE MOTIVATION TO COMMAND AMONG COMMAND AND GENERAL STAFF COLLEGE STUDENTS

A thesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in partial f'ulfillment of the req'uirements of the degree MASTER OF MILITA.RY ART AND SCIENCE

by CHARLES L. LARDENT, JR., MAJ, IN B.S., University of Montevallo, 1961 M.B.A., Georgia State University, 1969

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 1976 Document Title: An Assessment of the Motivation to Command Among Command and General Staff College Students.

AD Number: ADA030186 Subject Categories: ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT AND LABOR RELATIONS Corporate Author: ARMY COMMAND AND GENERAL STAFF COLL FORT LEAVENWORTH KANS Title: An Assessment ofthe Motivation to Command Among Command and General Staff Col1ege Students. Descriptive Note: Final rept., Personal Authors: Lardent,Charles 1. , Jr; Report Date: 11 JUN 1976 Pages: 111 PAGES Supplementaly Note: Master's thesis. Descriptors: *LEADERSHIP, *PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, *OFFICER PERSONNEL, ARMY PERSONNEL, TEST METHODS, THESES, COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS, MOTIVATION, QUESTIONNAIRES, DETERMINATION, SUPERVISION. Identifiers: Domain theOly Abstract: This study examines the relationship between command or manageJial success and vaJious ath'ibutes of motivation. The specific intent of the study is to conduct an exploratOly assessment of the motivation to manage among mid- grade Army officers. The short-range and operational objective of the study is to determine if command success can be explained, in part, in telms of managerial motivation. The findings reveal that there are umnistakable manageJial motivational attributes present in the CGSC sample of officers. A sub-group ofthe total sample of officers who by self-report indicate that they are more command oriented than the remainder of the sample are quite similar to a large sample of successful civilian managers. The remainder of the CGSC sample of officers are more nearly like the general population. (Author) Limitation Code: APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Source Code: 037260 MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE THESIS APPROVAL PAGE

Name of candidate Charles L. Lardent Jr., MAJ, USAR Title of thesis An Assessment of the Motfvatfonto Command Among ·Command and General Staff College Students

___~~:::~~~~::::::;;:~., Research Advisor

~~~~ t Member, Graduate Research Faculty ~~..~~;=a.::Si:I~"iI!',4ilc:::==-tMember, Graduate Research Facul ty

Accepted this ).,...0 day S:L n 1976 ~ __ Director, Master of Milita~nd Science. ~

The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the individual student author and do not necessarily represent the views of either the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. ABSTRACT This study examines the relationship between command or managerial success and various attributes of motiva­ tion. Specifically, the intent of the study is to con­ duct an exploratory assessment of the motivation to manage among a sample of mid-grade Army officers. In this study, a survey of the major theoretical positions relative to leadership and work motivation is presented, along with a review of selected literature. The major theories are useful primarily in their ability to establish conceptual frameworks and global perspectives, but they are limited in their usefulness at a particular operational level. It is suggested that what is needed to fill this void are a select number of limited domain theories. Thus, this study is conducted on the premise that it will help lay the groundwork for this objective. The research plan called for the administration of a brief biographical data questionnaire and three psychometric instruments. The immediate objective of this study, and its operational definition of success, was the capability to determine if managerial success can be explained, in part, in terms of managerial motivation. From a mid-range point of view the study helps provide a comparative data base. From a long range perspective,

ii the findings of this study provide a rationale and impetus for ongoing managerial motivation research. The findings reveal that there are unmistakeable managerial motivation attributes present in the CGSC sample of officers. These attributes distinguish them from the general population. However, their relative level of managerial motivation is significantly less when compared to a large sample of civilian managers. Interestingly, though, when the sample is divided into two sUb-groups, with sub-group 'A' indicating a greater proclivity toward managerial roles and behaviors than sub-group 'B', additional significant findings emerge. Sub-group 'A' is significantly higher than SUb-group 'B' with respect to managerial motivation, and is quite similar to the norms for a large sample of successful managers. There are minor variations in the reSUlts, but in general, the findings are clear in their support for the motivation to manage construct among mid-grade Army officers.

iii FORWARD In recent years there has been an increasing aware­ ness of and concern over the availc1b'ilfty' a:>f, ma.nagerial 't,alent. In addressing this problem, John Miner, in his recent book of the same title, refers to it as The Human Constraint. If Miner is correct, if the reservoir of managerial talent is decreasing, it becomes especially important to be able to identify, predict, and develop the motivation to manage of present and future commanders or managers. What this study attempts to do is aSSess the motiva­ tion to manage among mid-grade Army officers by sampling a group of officers attending the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. It is felt that this study constitutes a significant first step to accomplishing the stated objective. From initial conceptualization to completed product has been a long journey, and many people have been instru­ mental, to a much greater extent than many of them realize, in bringing this study to fruition. To Dr. John Miner of Georgia State University goes thanks for planting the concept of motivation to manage, and to Major General (Ret) John "Tiger" Beall of West Georgia College for suggesting the applicability of the concept to the Army. To Dr. Ivan Birrer and Colonel Conrad Hausman thanks are expressed for providing the officer sample and making the arrangements for the study. Thanks also go to the CGSC faculty research committee members, Lieutenant Colonel Bill Miner and Major Jim Berg. On the operational side of the house, many thanks go to Dr. Herbert Eber of Psychological Resources As­ sociates for providing the Motivational Analysis Test booklets the subsequent very complex computer scoring services. Appreciation is also extended to Darlene Smith, master stylist and typist, and to Liz Riley, test scorer, paper shuffler, promising programmer, and a11­ around "girl-friday" extraordina1:re. Most of all, the author wishes to express his appreciation to his committee chairman and research advisor: Dr. T. Owen Jacobs. His professional advice, guidance, and genuine concern helped set the direction; and his focus on time and purpose, reinforced with occasional judiciously applied Herzbergian KITA factors, helped provide the structure and set the pace for the successful conclusion to a research effort that will hopefully provide insight into a most important and timely construct: the motivation to manage!

~.\:R~ MAJ, IN, USAR 1 June 1976 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

ABSTRACT . . • • • • • • • • . . . · . • • • • • • ii LIST OF TABLES . • • • • • • . . . • • • • • • vi

LIST OF FIGURES •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • v:Ii Chapter

I. A PERSPECTIVE OF MANAGEMENT • • • • • • • 1 Introduction . • • • • • · ...... 1 The Motivation to Manage • • • • • • • • 7 Semantic Considerations · ...... 11 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . • • · . . . . . 2) Leadership • • • . . • . . • • • • • • . 24 Mo t i vat ion • . . • • • . • • • • • • . . )0 Process Views . . . . • • • • • . • • 30 Content Views ~ • • • • • • • . • . • 34 III. REVIEW OF RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS, CRITERIA, AND METHODOLOGY • . • • • • • • • • • • 46 Introduction • . • . • . . . • • • • . . 46 Research Instruments . • • . • . . . • • 52 Data Collection Procedure •• . . • • • 87 Hypo theses . • • • . • . . • . • . • • . 92

IV. FINDINGS-ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION . . . • • 95 MSCS Results .••.•...•••••• 95 sm-Results .•.••••••••••• 98 MA.T Results . . • • . • • • • . • • • • 105 Inter Sub-Group Analysis • • • • • • • . 118 MSCS Results.. • •.•••••• 118 SDI Re suIts .• • • . • • • • . . • • 121 MAT Results ••••.•••••••. 1)2

V. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS • • • • • . . • • • 1)6 Introduc tion • . • • • • • • • • • • • . 1)6 Overview of Methodology and Approach • • 137 Overview of Findings • • • • • • • • • . 138 Implications of Motivation to Manage Theory • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 142

iv Page Value and utility to the Army ...... 145 APPENDIXES A. BIOGRAPHICAL QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . 148 B. GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . 157 c. MSCS INSTRUMENT . 160 D. SDI INSTRUMENIJ.' 176

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 180

v Table Page

1 • Means and Standard Deviations of the SDI Scores of managers, supervisors, workers, and the general population • . . . • . . . · . . 63 2. Coefficients of correlation between SDI scores and relative job success. . . • . . . . • . . • • . 64 3. MAT results for OCS applicants and biserial correlations with Selection criterion . . • . . . • • . . • • • 75 4. MAT Scores for Recruit, Selected OCS, and NCO Student Groups . . • • . . · . . 76 5. Listing of CGSC s90res on MSCS and comparison of two composite scores and the total composite score with corresponding scores for a sample of college students enrolled in a Junior-level Management Principles Co'urse . • ...... • • • · . . 96 6. Comparison of CGSC Scores on SDI with Ghiselli's General Employed Population Norms • • . · . • . . . • • . 99 7. Comparison of CGSC Scores on SDI with Ghiselli's Managerial Norms . • . . . • • ...... 100 8. Comparison of CGSC Scores on MAT with Cattell's Normalization Sample . . 107 9. Comparison of MSCS Scores between Group A and Group B . . . . • . 120 10. Comparison of CGSC Scores on SDI between Group A and Group B • . • . . . 125 11. Comparison of CGSC Scores on MAT between Group A and Group B • . • • • . 126

vi Table Page 12. Comparison of CGSC, Sub-Groups 'A' and 'B' with Ghiselli's Managerial Sample Norms . . . . . • . . . 128

Vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page

1 • The Relative Importance of Ghiselli's thirteen traits to managerial talent • • . . • . . • • • • • • . • . . 62 2. Profile of typical successful American businessmen • • • • ...... 73

vi i i 1 CHAPTER I A Perspective of Management Introduction. Management as a process is one of the oldest human activities. Today it is generally recognized as an essential activity, sort of a fact of life; but this has not always been true. Only in relatively recent years has management come to be rec­ ognized for its central role in human progress. Management tends to be associated with practicability, and practicability has not always been cherished. In fact, many historians point lout that there have only been two great eras of practicability in the history of the world. One era spanned a period from 6000 B.C. to 3000 B.C., and the second era only began during the eighteenth century (McGuire, 1963, pp. 12-27). Today management is generally recognized as a distinct identifiable process, predicated on a body of knowledge that can be discretely studied and applied in a number of situations and organizational settings. This is a recent development, however, generally traceable to Henri Fayol (1949) who, during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, formulated 2 the first true theory of management. Prior to the time of Fayol, the role of management was certainly no less important than it is today. The difference centers around how management was perceived and defined. Insufficient information exist"s to make a determi­ nation about the perception of the role of management prior to 3000 B.C., but it is generally recognized that from the time of Fayol extending back until about 3000 B.C., management was merely viewed as an integral part of some larger activity, not as a discrete process itself. For example, one of the earliest and clearest expositions of managerial principles is found in the Bible in the eighteenth chapter of Exodus. Jethro's staff recommenda­ tions to Moses are as timely and appropriate as today; yet they were made 1491 B.C. It is quite clear that Moses was knowledgeable of such managerial concepts and principles as unity of command, unity of effort, division of labor, span of control, chain of command, exception principle, and others. However, the fact that Moses and his advisors were knowledgeable of these principles was not treated in a theoretical context until the early twentieth century (Taylor, 1903). Perhaps the first documented recognition of the concept of the universality of management is found in 3 the record of a discourse between Socrates and Nicomachides as reported by Xenophon (n.d.). Nicomachides had been a successful captain and centu­ rion but was "passed over" for promotion to general. He encounters Socrates o'ne day and the discourse follows: "Who have been chosen generals, Nicomachides?" "Are not the Athenians the same as ever, Socrates?" he replied; "for they have 'not chosen me, who am worn out with serving from the time I was first elected, both as captain and ce'nturio'n, and with having received so many wounds from the enemy (he then drew aside his robe and showed the scars of the wounds), but have elected Antisthe'nes, who has never served in the heavy-armed infantry,

nor done anything remarkable in the cavalry, ,and who indeed knows nothing, but how to get money." Socrates continues his dialogue with Nicomachides, describing the common functio'ns inherent in the manage­ ment process, whether the organization being managed is an army, a chorus, a household, or a government. The dialogue concludes with Socrates saying: "Do not, therefore, Nicomachides," he added, "despise men skillful in managing a household; for 4 the conduct of private affairs differs from that of pUblic concerns only in magnitude; in other respects they are similar; but what is most to be observed, is, that neither of them are managed without men; and that private matters are not managed by one species of men, and public matters by another; for those who conduct public business make use of men not at all differing in nature from those whom the managers of private affairs employ; and those who know how to employ them, conduct either private or public affairs judiciously, while those who do 'not know will err in the manage­ ment of both." Thus, throuGh this Socratic dialogue, it is clear that even in the fifth century B.C. men (or at least some men) were aware of a universal character of man­ agement, that management is a discrete and identifiable process apart from any particular organization. Yet, that realization obviously did not emerge into the main­ stream of managerial thought until centuries later.

Over 2300 years passed before Henri Fay0 1 , in 1916, postulated a distinct character and universality ,of management in his now famous book, Administration Industrielle et Gene'rale (Fayo1, 1949). 5 There are numerous other historical examples that illustrate various aspects of the importance of manage­ ment: the Egyptians around 2500 B.C. for the use of staffs, decentralization, and therapy interviews (Erman, 1927, pp. 55-60, 76, 195, 242); Plato for the concept of specialization (Cornford, 1959, pp. 165-167); Alexander the Great for use of a staff system (Tarn, 1957, p. 12); and the list is practically inexhaustible. However, the purpose here is not to focus on history or to philosophize about management but, rather, to glean a perspective of the essential role and character of the management processl to show that management, though often unrecognized, has always been an essential compo­ nent of human activities; that the management process, though necessarily integral to an effective organization, is nonetheless a discrete activity having functional elements cornmon to many organizations; that the manage­ ment process is not merely an extension of the character of a partiCUlar organization but rather, a discrete, identifiable systemic force that is capable of activating and orchestrating the various activities and elements of any organization. Probably the most eloquent description of the cen­ trality of the management process is provided by 6 Claude S. George (1968, p. 1)= From an almost unrecognized position in 1900, management has risen today to be the central ac­ tivity of our age and economy. Management is at one and the same time the determiner of our economic progress, the employer of our educated, the amasser of our resources, the guides for our effective government, the strength of our national defense, and the molder of our society. It is the central core of our national as well as personal activities, and the way we manage ourselves and our institutions reflects with alarming clarity what we and our society will become. Despite its importance, however, management is one of the most nebulous and at the same time most ubiquitous functions in societies, being found in the homes, churches, governments, and economic undertakings of all peoples. It is and

always has been the st~ong right hand of all leaders. In fact, all the truly great leaders of history were managers - managing countries, managing explorations, managing wars, managing other men's efforts. 7 It is doubtful whether many people have viewed the essential role and purpose of management in this light or along this scale. Most often management is \ perceived at its more practical and operationally mun­ dane level. The remainder of this thesis will also be on a much less lofty level and along much more precise and less philosophical lines; however, it does seem important to create a backdrop against which to develop a perspective for looking at some of those elements that draw people to the managerial fraternity. It is also essential to understand how indispensable a viable managerial force is to any organization. The Motivation to Manage. One convenient way to look at organizations is to view them as loci of re­ sources. While realistic, this tends to be a rather static view, however, since nothing happens unless the resources are consumed in some transformation process and reemerge in a form that provides utility. Thus, initiation and maintenance of such a transformation pro­ cess are two of the principle functions of manageme"nt. A battalion, for example, may be staffed with highly qualified individuals. Nothing happens, though, until their qualifications are transformed and operationalized in some useable form. Many would also correctly argue 8 that creation of the organization, the locus of re­ sources, is also a function of management. In a very loose se'nse then, a motivation to manage could be viewed as the desire to involve oneself in the organizational creation, initiation and mainte­ nance of the resource transformation process. Such a view, however, while conceptually a~ceptable, is opera­ tionally simplistic. The concept of motivation to manage as used in this study has a much more precise meaning. The concept or construct of motivation to manage emerged from the empirical research and theoretical formulation of John B. Miner, Research Professor of Management at Georgia State University. In the early 1960's Miner began to formulate a theory of managerial motivation (Miner, 1965, chap. 2), while at the same time constructing an instrument to assess managerial motivation (Miner, 1961, 1965). The theory conceptually is quite simple and straightforward. It asks the questio'ns: what do suc­ cessful managers do?; what are their attitudes and behaviors? Stated another way, what the the attitudinal and behavioral characteristics of successful managers vis a vis less successful managers? The theory ide'ntifies, 9 and subsequent empirical research reports, at least six attitudes and behaviors in which successful managers engage significantly more than less successful managers. These will be explored in a subsequent chapter. In the early 1960's, the validity of Miner's theory had been tentatively established through several small studies; but in 1964 Miner was presented with the opportunity to test his theory and validate his instru­ ment on 219 administrators in four different school systems: one large system, one medium system, one small system, and one consolidated system (Miner, 1967). The results were initially somewhat disconcerting and sur­ prising. Only in the large school district was there a strong positive correlation between success as an administrator and scores on Miner's motivation to manage instrument, the Miner Sentence Completion Scale (MSCS). This anomaly was subsequently resolved theoretically and empirically. It was later concluded that a motivation to manage relatively is not as important a contributor to success in small-to-medium, autonomous, informally directed, homogeneous organiza­ tions as it is in large organizations. However, in larger, more hetrogeneous, formally structured organizations, a high motivation to manage tends to be 10 a strong determinant of managerial effectiveness and organizational success. Independent of, but parallel to, Miner's notion of motivation to manage, there emerged an identical, or at least similar, idea called the "will to manage." The will to manage is traceable to Marvin Bower (1966) who for many years was managing director of the inter­ national management consulting firm of McKinsey and Company. Based on his many years of experience, Bower intuitively or clini~ally discerned in almost all truly successful managers, in organization of more than 300 persons, the existence of a quality he labeled the "will to manage." Thus, it appears that what Bower subjectively and intuitively labeled the will to manage, Miner empirically identified, measured, and theoretically defined as the motivation to manage. The concept of motivation to manage, therefore, takes on a more precise and restricted meaning than a casual observation would initially suggest. Under the theory of motivation to manage, it can be explained, for example, why a person may make a very successful Special Forces detachme'nt commander, but an unsuccessful battalion commander or even company commander. It can be explained, for example, why a person might be very 11 successful as a special project or program manager, but fail as a brigade commander or division G-3. This is to say that the motivational attributes and the managerial behaviors most consistent with success in a given organization, at a given hierarchical level, and under a given organizational climate may not produce similar success in another organizatio'n, at a different level, or under a different climate. The construct of motivation to manage, while reasonably germane to most if not all organizations, is most relevant to rather large (more than 300 people), formally structured, out­ put oriented organizations. Most military organizations and military environments appear generally consistent with this definitional requirement, especially if readiness is considered to constitute an output. Semantic Considerations. One of the most persistent and troublesome spectres to co'ntrol when dealing with the behavioral sciences is that of semantics. It can undermine and even sabotage the most eloquent treatise. For that reason it is essential that several areas of potential semantic confustion be addressed and certain relevant terms defined. At least for the purpose of this study such terms as leadership, management, authority, power, and command 'need to be defined rather 12 thoroughly. Otherwise, the likelihood for misunder­ standing and confusion is quite substantial.

Of the following three terms I influence, power, and authority, influence is the most elemental. In simplest terms, it is the behavior on the part of one individual that produces a change in the behavior,, at­ titudes, feelings, etc. of another individual (Miner, 1973, p. 298). It may arise from a number of sources: control over environment, persuasion, control over sanctions, or as a consequence of an exchange agreement (Cartwright & Zander, 1968). The point is, influence may be exerted in any number of different ways. Power refers to the potential to exert influence, whether or not the influence is actually exerted (Miner,

1973, p. 299). Generally ~ower emerges from an ability to control sanctions (Katz & Kahn, 1966), and the sanctions may be of either a positive (rewarding, reinforcing) or negative (punishment) nature. It is possible for an individual to attempt to exert influ­ ence and fail because of insufficient power. Conversely, it is possible for an individual to possess the requi­ site power to produce some change in another person, but never use his influe"nce to do so. As will be seen later, from the standpoint of 13 motivation to manage, the concept of power is an enigma. It is not completely clear how power actually relates. It may be that power, rather than being unidimensional, is multidimensional, with certain elements of power enhancing motivation to manage and other elements detrac­ ting from it. In any event, when power becomes institutionalized and legitimized, the resultant product is authority. In other words, authority is institutionalized and legitimized power. Up to this point the definitional tasks have been reasonably straightforward. A rather sticky problem now arises, however. It is usually not too difficult to see how power becomes institutionalized, but it can be very difficult to always ascertain how it becomes legitimized. The essential questions are: who does the legitimizing, how do they do it, and what is the process? There have bee"n many attempts to deal with these questions (eg., Barnard, 1938; Simon, 1957; Thompson, 1956; Filley & Grimes, 1968; French & Raven, 1959; et al), but the answers are elusive, and the questions remain yet additional tasks for social psychology and organizational theory. Certainly they are outside the scope of this study. Of the three terms: leadership, management, and 14 command, leadership is the most elemental; yet it is also the most nebulous and difficult to define. It is a process wherein one individual has the power to influence other members of a group so as to achieve differentiation, maintenance, and integration of individual and group roles. Leadership focuses on the individual, his attributes, and his leader behavior. However, as leadership is exercised in most large organizations, it is far from being a discrete and independent activity. It is inextricably intertwined with other managerial functions and situational factors. A review of most major empirical leadership studies led Miner (1973, p. 332) to conclude that: Taken as a whole these studies • . • indicate that leadership may make a difference, but it rarely achieves the degree of impact that simple observation of leader behavior and group performance at a given point in time might suggest. Leaders of effective groups behave as they do at least in part because of various situational factors, and among the most important of these is the effectiveness of their groups•••• When role prescriptions for a given managerial job do not provide 15 for . . . discretion and consequently when the incumbent manager does not make any important decisions regarding his subordi­ nates, the leader behavior of that manager does not make any difference. It is interesting and significant that of the four terms so far defined and briefly discussed (influence, power, authority, and leadership), none are found in Army Regulation 310-25, Dictionary of United States Army Tenus. The tenus, conunand and management, are definitely found, however; and a substantial effort has obviously been undertaken to define them. Still, there remain confusion, controversy, and argumentation over the alleged differences and similarities between management and conunand. In a co.lloquial or operational sense the term, command, is not commo'nly used in the civilian sector or in the management or industrial or organizational psychology literature. Interestingly, though, Fayol (1949) used the term, command, to identify one of the five essential functions of management, obviously denoting the function of ordering or directing. Command, however, is a common term in the military environment, generally equating to the civilian use of the term, management. The use of the tenu, 16 management, in the military sector, by general use and not by official definition, tends to project a specialized meaning, referring more specifically to management tools, techniques, and mechanics, rather than to the process of directing human resources. The of­ ficial definition of management found in AR 310-25 corrects the general misunderstanding and misuse of the term. The official definitions of management and of com­ mand are interesting, but they still fail to resolve the definitional dilemma. With approved use in the Army, the Department of Defense, and the Inter-American Defense System, AR 310-25 states that management is: A process of establishing and attaining ob­ jectives to carry out responsibilities. Management consists of those continuing actions of planning, directing, coordinating, controlling, and evaluating the use of men, money, materials, and facilities to accomplish missions and tasks. Management is inherent in command, but it does not include as extensive authority and responsibility as command. The official definition of command under AR 310-25 17

J.D mul ti-fac(~ted. For approved usc in NATO, CENTO, and SEATO, command is defined quite simply as: "the authority vested in an individual of the armed forces for the direction, coordination, and control of mili­ tary forces." However, the definition approved by the ,Army, the Department of Defense, and the I-nter-American Defense System reads: The authority which a commander in the mili­ tary service exercises over his subordinates by virtue of rank and assignment. Command includes the authority and responsibility for effectively using available resources and for planning the employment of, organizing, directing, coordinating, and controlling mili­ tary forces for the accomplishment of assigned missions. It also includes responsibility for health, welfare, morale, and discipline of assigned personnel. It seems significant that NATO, CENTO, and SEATO have not approved this definition of command; however, they, along with the Army, the Department of Defense, and the I-nter-American Defense System, have jointly ap­ proved the definitions of command as command applies to: 1. an order, 2. a unit, and 3. the verb, .to dominate. 18

Now, has engaging in this definitional exercise served to clarify and resolve the differences, if any, between management and command or managing and commandingr The answers seem to be: clarify - perhaps; resolve - no: However, it does show that many dif­ ferences are more semantic and provincial than sub­ stantive. The major discernable difference seems to center around command being expressed in terms of authority and responsibility for managing; whereas in the civilian sector they are implicit in the managerial process. Moreover, what differences might exist with respect to authority between the two sectors are more operational or procedural than substantive. The purpose for spending so much time discussing command and management is to show that there is really little difference between them. At least for the pur­ pose of this study, management equates to command; command equates to management; and a motivation to engage in one, notwithstanding environmental differences, may be no different than a motivation to engage in the other. Success in one domain as a manager presupposes the existence of the same or similar attributes necessary to succeed in the other domain. Up to this point an effort has been made to show 1.9 that there is little or no difference between the functions associated with managing and the functions associated with commanding; but very little has been said directly about what those functions are or what the general attributes of successful managing are. Again, this is a difficult task, for there are many definitions of the management process. Most defini­ tions, however, view management as a process expressed in terms of inherent functions. Unfortunately, there is much disagreement on what the functions are, what they should be, and, additionally, how to define them. The official Army definition of management found in AR 310-25 is expressed in terms of ~unctions or actions. It lists sixl planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, controlling, and evaluating. It is interesting to note that these six functions are essentially the same as those originally advanced by Fayol (1949) who, around the turn of the century, formulated the first complete theory of management.

Fayol identified five functions I planning, organizing, command, coordination, and control. There are literally dozens of management writers, each of whom has proposed his own set of managerial functions .. None probably is very wrong, but their 20 proliferation certainly gives rise to misunderstanding and confusion. Is it possible to resolve the dilemma? Miner (1973, chap. 2) conducted an extensive review of all major empirical studies involving managerial functions. Based on his review and his own research, he found that four primary f'unctions and two secoondary functions consisteontly appeared in the managerial process of all organizations studied. They are: planning, directing, coordinating, and controlling as primary functions and staffing and representing as secondary functions. In several organizations Miner found a third clearly discernable secondary function; negotiating; but in other organizations it did not ap­ pear as a discrete activity. Therefore, he does not include it as a consistent f'unction. Strangely, even though many writers traditionally include organizing as a managerial function, Miner did not find it to be a separate function at all but, rather, a component of planning. Moreover, the semantics as­ sociated with the directing function are very confusing, with the following terms variously used to express the same general idea: motivating, activating, security efforts, commanding, supervising, leading, and adminis­ tering. Miner (1973, p. 65) points out that from a 21 pra.ctical standpoint all these terms have much the same connotation, and the tenn, directing, is retained because it is the most frequently used and is the more

traditional practice in the management litera~ure. Management, therefore, is defined as an organiza­ tional process involving the primary functions of planning, directing, coordinating, and controlling together with the secondary functio'ns of staffing and representing in the pursuit of organizational goals. Thus a person with a strong motivation to manage is motivated to engage in those role behaviors consistent with the essential functions of management and the prescriptions of the managerial role. Motivation to manage theory (Miner, 1974) proposes that such a person likes to compete; he engages in competitive games and enjoys competitive situations; he likes to exercise power and is comfortable in doing so, 'not a self­ agrandizing, personalized form of power but, rather, a socialized type of power (McClelland & Burnham, 1976). He is favorably disposed to his superiors and to people in positions of status and authority generally, a sort of positive attitude toward authority, a power-legiti­ mizing view. He enjoys being in a distinctive position, standing out from the group so to speak, and he has a 22

strong S0nSl.~ of responsibility. He is favorably disposed to administrative matters and, recognizing the importance of planning, freely engages in routine administrative activities. He is assertive and ex­ presses his assertiveness in a way that is frequently associated with the active or masculine role (Miner, 1974, p. 14). These characteristics tend to constitute elements of a strong motivation to manage. Of course, they are not absolutes. Different managers may successfully manage using varying combinations of these characteristics, and different situations may evoke different combinations.

t 2)

CHAPTER II Review of Literature Leadership is generally viewed as a basic building block, a human cornerstone of management. Within organizational and situational constraints it is the major determinant of how the directing function is carried out. Yet the phe'nome'no'n of leadership, and the various factors that contribute to the making of a successful leader, for years have intrigued, eluded, and beguiled behavioral scientists, practitioners, and laymen a.lilce. Whether or not leadership behavior per se is truly the major determinant of managerial success in most situations, the general observation that it is

certainly seems to be the norm. This is t~ say, whether fact or fiction, convention holds that manage­ rial success to a very large extent is directly attributa.ble to leadership competence. In any event, a look at leadership seems to be a logical starting place to begin looking at the motivation to manage. What are the essential ingredients for success as

a leader, a manager, a. commander? What are the motiva­ tions that draw men to managerial positions? A large 24 body of literature exists~ in fact two large bodies exist, tha.t reflect efforts to answer these questions. One body of literature is essentially leadership (and management) oriented, and the other addresses motivation within occupational settings. The present study draws upon both bodies of literature, but it does so within a domain that is purposefully limited. It views leadership within the context of formal organizations, thus: managing; and it views motivation from the standpoint of success in the management role. Leadership. In his Handbook of Leadership, Stogdill (1974), presents a comprehensive review and evaluati.on of the very large and controversial leadership literature. He identifies at least eleven major cate­ gories of definitions or conceptualizations of leader­ ship and six rather indiscrete and loosely discernable theories (Stogdill, 1974, pp. 7-2.3). He makes the point that leadership theories, "if such can be said to exist," are not at all satisfactory as theories, but they do serve to define research problems, and they are of interest for this reason (Stogdill, 1974, p. 17). The typology of theories presented by Stogdill is as follows: 1. Great Man theories 25 2. Enviro'nme'ntal theories J. Personal-Situational theories 4. Interaction-Expectation theories 5. Humanistic theories 6. Exchange theories Great Man theories, per se, are no longer regarded as viable explanations of leadership, but they seem to be important for at least two reasons I they marked the first attempts to investigate leadership and they gave rise to trait theories. Trait theories have been the subject of controversy, but recently, in a more realistic and sophisticated fonn , trait co'nsiderations seem to be enjoying a resurgence of interest, respect­ ability, and, usefulness (Cattell, 1957, 1958; Cattell and Butcher, 1968; Cattell, Eber, and Tatsuoka, 1970; Ghise11i, 1971; Miner, 1965, 1967, 1974, 1975; stogdill, 1974). Present day trait ap­ proaches, however, do not represent a return to atom­ istic explanations of leadership, suggesting that a singular trait gives rise to a given leadership effect. Environmental theories are probably as invalid :in one extreme as Great Man and early trait theories are in the other. Environmental theories attempt to ex­ plain leadership behavior exclusively in terms of 26 fortuity of the environment; i.e., time, place, and circumstances produce the leader. Proponents of these theories include Mumford (1909), Hocking (1924), and Murphy (1941). Personal-Situational theories attempt to explain leadership by placing the leader in context with the situational factors. Case (1933), e.g., stated that leadership is a function of the conjunctions of: (1) the personality traits of the leader, (2) the nature of the group and its members, and (3) the problem con­ fronting the group. Others who have contributed to this theoretical view include Bennis (1961), Cattell (1951), Cattell and Butcher (1968), Cattell, Eber and Tatsuoka (1970), Stogdill and Shartle (1955) and Hollander (1958, 1964). While the major thrusts of Cattell's and Hollander's work are mostly outside the • domain of Personal-Situational Leadership theories, Cattell's concepts of group syntality and synergy and Hollander's concept of idiosyncrasy credit are defi­ nitely germane to this classification. Related to the Personal-Situational theories is another group of theories called Interaction-Expecta­ tion theories. However, instead of focusing on the task, the group a.nd its members, and the leader's 27 personality traits, Interaction-Expectation theories are concerned with the social interaction of group members. According to Homans (1950), leadership is defined in terms of the origination and maintenance of interaction. Since the idea of expectancy is incorpo­ rated into these theories, they tend to take on the complexion of some motivation expectancy theories (Vroom, 1964). What appears to emerge is a motivation­ al approach to leadership based on interaction, valence, expectancy, and instrumentality (House, 1971). Jacobs (1976) points out that his personal communications with House (1971, 1974) suggest that there is very little difference between predictions of Expectancy theory and those of Exchange theory, except that Exchange theory may be broader and is better able to handle what Jacobs calls negative reciprocity. This has led Jacobs to ask if it is useful to differentiate between them. Of course, Exchange theory is associated principally with leadership, while Expectancy is tied mainly to motivation process theories, a subject to be covered later in this chapter. Others who have con­ tributed to this theoretical view include Evans (1970), Fiedler (1967), Stogdill (1959), and Hollander (1958, 1964) . 28 In recent years the Humanistic theories have be­ come quite popular. They are concerned with the development of effective and cohesive organizations, and the foundation upon which the Humanistic theories are built is a value assumption that presupposes a quality of innate "goodness" of human motivation and behavior. Generally Humanistic theories, both leader­ ship and motivation, are traceable to the Hawthorn Studies of the late 1920s and early 1930s (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1964). Such people as Argyris (1957, 1962, 1964), McGregor (1960, 1966), B1a!{e and Mouton (1964), Likert (1961, 1967) and Maslow (1965) are representative of this approach. The assumption that social interaction constitutes a form of exchange provides the basis for Exchange theories. Interaction is set in motion and sustained because it is mutually rewarding. This approach re­ sembles an equity approach to motivation and appears to be something akin to a homeostatic search for equity position within the organization. Contributors to this view a.re Homans (1958), March and Simon (1959), Thibaut and Kelley (19.59). Probably the best known Exchange theory is that formulated by Jacobs (1971).

Jacobs (1971, pp. 210-21.5) ~oints out that Exchange 29 theory is also applicable at the la.rger organiza­ tional level and can be identified as an exchange between the organization as an entity and its environ­ ment. Thus Exchange theory on a rather informal. basis, according to Jacobs, resembles the more formal state­ ments of open systems theory (e,g., Katz & Kahn, 1966 and Thompson, 1967). In concluding this general overview of the leader­ ship literature, it is pointed out that leadership theories--if, as Stogdill (l974) posited, they can be called theories,--are inadequate in several important ways. Certainly, theories that attempt to explain leadership solely in terms of the individual, the group, or the environment are vestiges of a bygone era. After debunking the Great Man and the Environ­ mental approaches, though, how satisfactory are the four remaining approaches? Some of them do a very good job of attempting to explain what leadership is, how it emerges, and what styles of leadership are con­ sistent with what kinds of groups and tasks. However, as Stogdill poi'nts out (1974), none of them explain or predict who will emerge as a leader in any particular kind of situation. Moreover, because of their nature, there is )0 probably no way to effectively operationalize any of the extant leadership theories. They all tend to be theoretically global or grand in nature. There is nothing wrong with this. Many of them do create needed conceptual frameworks and, as Stogdill (1974) pointed out, they do define problem areas. However, they do not offer the specificity necessary to deal with leadership, at least not apriorily, at the opera­ tional level. This argument will be rurther explored at the end of Chapter II after a review of motivation has been made. Motivation. Theories of motivation tend to organ­ ize themselves somewhat more neatly, and they are definitely more discrete than leadership theories. Whether they are any more satisfactory, though, in an operational sense or as guides for action is quite another question; but the potential certainly generates optimism (Campbell, et. al., 1970, pp. )40-)84). Process Views: Motivation theories tend to tie themselves together into two rather sensible and con­ venient classifications: (1) process theories and (2) content or substantive theories (Campbell, et. al., 1970). The former addresses motivation in a mechanical or process sense; i.e., given that motivation exists, how is it energized, directed, sustained, and stopped~ 31 To explain and describe how variables interact and influence each other to produce certain kinds of behavior is the goal of process theories. Content theories, on the other hand, focus on a specific motive or set of motives. They are concerned with the sources of motives, the identity of those factors within an individual or his environment tha.t generate manifest behavior. One general type of process theory is that which emerges from stimulus-response theory (Hull, 1943) or law of effect (Thorndike, 1911). In essence, the theory states that, of several possible responses to a given stimula.tion (stimulus), the response (effect) that produces the greatest satisfaction will have a higher likelihood of being repeated when the same situa­ tion reappears. Conversely, the least satisfying re­ • sponse is more likely not to be repeated. Most early stimulus-response research was conducted with animals, and a general transferability to human behavior cannot be uncritica.lly inferred. Nonetheless, this approach does offer some insights into human motivation. Miner (1974, PP' 309-310) points out that this type of process motivation theory seems to be what permeated and drove Frederick W. Taylor's thinking regarding 32 worker motivation and even today remains implicit in much of business practice. However, satisfaction is personal and multidimensional, while Taylor assumed impersonal universals. There are a number of inade­ quacies to this theoretical approach. One is that an organism will respond to stimuli which are totally un­ related to physiological need states. Another is that in both men and animals it has been demonstrated that the subjects will often strive to increase the amount of stimulation they receive (see e.g., Cofer and Appley, 1964). Equity theory or Social Comparison theory is a second type of process theory. It holds that people are not only concerned with ma.ximizing payment (rewa.rd) but also the fa.irness of payment (equity of reward) as well. The theory is concerned with the comparison of one input-outcome ratio to other input-outcome ratios (Adams, 196), 1965). If the ratios are in balance, equity is present, and the person just keeps on keeping on in what may be described as a maintenance mode. If inequity is present though, the person perceives the imbalance, cognitive dissonance results (Festinger, 1957), and the person is motivated to strive to reduce the dissonance and attain an equity balance. 33 Miner (1974, p. 312) points out that equity theory is potentially applicable to a va.riety of input-outcome relationships; however, in actual practice its use has been limited almost exclusively to studying role behaviors as they relate to compensation. In this mode equity theory has generated quite a bit of research, and the research has been generally supportive as it applies to both overpayment and underpayment (Campbell, et. al., 1970; Goodman, et. al., 1971). However, it does not appear to specifically treat the underlying motivational processes. Also, the particular way an individual will seek to reduce dissonance and restore balance is not really addressed (Valenzi & Andrews, 1971) • The process theory that ha.s received the greatest attention, and the one that has produced the greatest number of variations to the basic theory, is expect­ ancy theory or VIE (valance, instrumentality, expect­ ancy) theory. Lewin (1938) with people and Tolman (1932) with animals were the first to develop and in­ vestiga.te expectancy theory of motivation. In recent years several versions of expectancy theory have ap­ peared (Graen, 1969; Lawler, 1970; Porter and Lawler, 1969; and Vroom, 1964). All expectancy theories have )4 in common a built-in construct of expectancy regarding various outcomes that are likely to ensue from cer­ tain behaviors. Also, there is a graduated preference of outcomes. One outcome may be preferred over others merely because it is instrumental to attaining a higher level outcome, and the strength of a preference a person has for a certain outcome is defined as valence. Research generated by VIE theory has produced some en­ couraging results by sheding light on the motivational process when examined in the light of various content factors such as pay and achievement (Galbraith and Cummings, 1967; Graen, 1969; Porter and Lawler, 1968; and Wofford, 1971). However, there are inconsistent and non-supportive results (Wahba and House, 1974; House, Shapiro, and Wahba, 1974; and Reinharth and Wahba, 1975). The precise nature of the relationships of the components of the VIE theoretical model remain uncertain (Campbell, et. al., 1970). Still, as more is learned about both content theory and VIE theory, VIE theory could prove to be the vehicle to explain the • "process" of how a "content" fa.ctor is operationalized. • Content Views: Unlike process theories of motiva­ tion, which are not concerned with particular motives, content theories concentrate on specific motives and 34 in common a built-in construct of expectancy regarding various outcomes that are likely to ensue from cer­ ta.in beha.viors. Also, there is a graduated preference of outcomes. One outcome may be preferred over others merely because it is instrumental to attaining a higher level outcome, and the strength of a preference a person has for a certain outcome is defined as valence. Research generated by VIE theory has produced some en­ couraging results by sheding light on the motivational process when examined in the light of various content factors such as pa.y and achievement (Galbraith and Cummings, 1967; Graen, 1969; Porter and Lawler, 1968; and Wofford, 1971). However, there are inconsistent and non-supportive results (Wahba and House, 1974; House, Shapiro, and Wahba, 1974; and Reinharth and Wahba, 197.5). The precise nature of the relationships of the components of the VIE theoretical model remain uncertain (Campbell, et. al., 1970). still, as more is learned about both content theory and VIE theory, VIE theory could prove to be the vehicle to explain the "process" of how a "content" fa.ctor is operationalized. Content Views: Unlike process theories of motiva­ tion, which are not concerned with particular motives, content theories concentrate on specific motives and 35 their sources. Maslow (1943, 1970) formulated one of the first content theories of motivation, and his hierarchy of needs model has become quite fa.mous. The emergence of Maslow's hierarchy is more attributable to his views on existentialism and psychoanalysis than to empirical research or a practical concern for work motivation; however, Maslow postulated five levels of motives or needs, extending from the physiological level to self-actualization. The theory holds that before a person can move from one need level to the next higher need level, the lower level needs must be lareely satiated. The principal value of Maslow's theory lies in its conceptual framework, its pioneering uniqueness, and its popular appeal. In actual practice the theory lacks specificity, and efforts to operation­ alize Maslow's or similar theories (e.g., Alderfer, 1972) have not been very successful (Vroom, 1965; Beer, 1966; Hall and Nougiam, 1968; Payne, 1970; Roberts, Walker, and Miles, 1971). This should not be interpreted as a criticism of Maslow or his hierarchy of needs theory. Rather, the intent is to show that the theory serves principally as a broad conceptual framework, not as an operational model. Following in Maslow's· footsteps "Has one of his 36 students, Douglas McGregor, who primarily was responsible for popularizing Maslow. It has never been completely clear what McGregor had in mind when he wrote his famous Human Side of Enterprise, but the impact of his work is undeniable. An academy of Management survey of its members conducted in Early 1973, revealed that Human Side of Enterprise was the most frequently cited book in having contributed most to the field of manage­ ment, and/or was the most recommended book for students ~ ~ (Academy of Management, 1973). .... McGregor advanced the theoretical concept encom­ passing two sets of assumptions regarding the nature of man. He referred to one set of assumptions theory X and the other set as theory Y. The basic assumptions and characteristics of each pole are well known: theory Y representing the positive, humanistic, desir­ able attributes of man and theory X representing the negativistic, selfish, "undesirable side. It is not un­ common to find both leadership theory and motivation theory ascribed to theory X theory Y. However intri­ guing and compelling theory X theory Y is as a philosophical framework, it, like the hierarchy of needs, is limited in its usefulness as an operational model; and attempts to use it in this way tend to undermine 37 the true value of the theoretical framework (see, e.g., Beer, 1966, pp. 39-68). H. A. Murray (1943) made a substantial contribu­ tion to later development in motivational and personal­ ity theory. He hypothesized the existence of a large number of basic needs that often varied but usually included:

1. Need for achievement

2. Need for aggression 3. Need for autonomy .j 4. Need for affiliation 5. Need for sex 6. Need for nurturance '.'\

~~ Like Maslow's theory , Murray's approach did not identify ,,I . '.11 these needs based on empirical research; they were

really rational concep~ualizations based on clinical experience. Unlike Maslow's theory, however, Murray's formulations have generated empirical research support­ ive of some of his ideas (Atkinson, 1958; Atkinson and Feather, 1966; McClelland, 1951, 1953, 1961, 1964, 1965; McClelland, Atkinson, Clark and Lowell, 1953; • Edwards, 1954; Jackson, 1965; Cattell and Butcher, 1968; Cattell and Child, 1975; et. al.). His ideas were very much influenced and molded by his experience on the ass Assessment Staff during World War II (Murray, 38 MacKinnon, Miller, Fisk, and Hanfman, 1948). Murray's greatest contribution to motiva.tion theory is not found in his own theoretical formulations, though, but in the research his formulations inspired and generated. McClelland and Atkinson are best known for their work with what they identify as three basic needs which they extracted from Murray's list and then sought to refine. The three needs are: 1. Need for Achievement (n-Ach) 2. Need for Power (n-Pow) J. Need for Affiliation (n-Aff) While there is a plethora of research and literature dealing with all three needs. the one that has received the greatest attention has been the need for achieve­ ment (Atkinson, 1958; Atkinson and Feather, 1966; McClelland, 1951, 1953, 1961, 1964, 1965; McClelland, e t. al., 1953). During his early research and theoretical formula­ tion, McClelland supposed that a high level of N-Ach, as he defined the concept, was essential for managerial success. Now, however, it has been consistently demon­ strated that a high 'need for achievement supports entrepreneural success, but not necessarily managerial success. In fact, a singly high need for achievement, 39 together with low needs for affiliation and power, tends to be anathema to· managerial success in govern­ ment work, the professions, and large, formalistic business organizations (McClelland, 1969). On the other hand, a high N-Ach can be useful in challeng­ ing and dynamic business organizations and. in managerial positions in the governments of' developing nations (Miner, 1974, p. 316). Several years ago, while conducting research on alcoholism, McClelland arrived at an interesting finding regarding the need for power. He found that N-Pow has at least two components: personalized power (P-Power) and socialized power (S-Power) (McClelland, 1971). He found that people whose high need for power predominates along the P-Power dimen­ sion, tend to drink more heavily and to incur higher incidences of alcohol problems. Conversely, people with high needs for power along the S-Power dimension typically do not drink as much, and they do not tend to react in the same way when they do drink. This observation appears quite relevant in view of the integrated and unintegrated components of a motive as suggested by Cattell (1957, 1958, pp. 197-238). Also, this finding would help explain the inconsistency of 40 Miner (e.g., 1964, 1975) having found power to be an im­ portant determinant of motivation to manage, though Ghiselli (1971) found it to be relatively unimportant. Taken at face value then, McClelland's research suggests that power can manifest itself in at least two forms: a domineering, self-agrandizing, personalized form and a goal-oriented, outward-directed, socialized form. This distinction can be quite important. Cattell has criticized some of McClelland's re­ search, not based on practical usage, but from the standpoint of instrumentation and methodology. For example, in addressing McClelland's use of the TAT (Murray, 194) to diagnose and measure n-Ach, Cattell argues (Cattell and Butcher, 1968, pp. 221-225): •.. even if the TAT scoring is fully reliable, which it is far from being - the validity against the totality of motivational component, i.e., the concept validity is quite poor. The very concept of "the need for achievement" is fake, since . • . the main attitudes and strivings which must be included in any reasonable semantic usage of "achievement" • . . actually spring from two quite distinct sources. as well as two or more auxiliary sources . 41 There is no single scorable "need for achieve­ ment," but several distinct functional sources, which may stand at quite different levels in the same individual or community. However valid Cattell's argument may be, the fact remains that operationally McClelland's and Atkinson's work with motivation, especially the need for achieve­ ment (n-Ach), has been productive. The needs for achievement, power, and affiliation may not be pure factors; they may not be precisely what McClelland and Atkinson say they are; they may not operate in the exact way that McClealland and Atkinson think they do. Still. they work reasonably well, and that is important. If Maslow and McGregor can be conceptually placed at one end of the theory-empiricism continuum, Frederick W. Herzberg would appear at the other. If Maslow and McGregor epitomize theory born of rational speculation, Herzberg epitomizes empirical practica­ bility. Without benefit of any defined theoretical orientation, Herzberg conducted a study of motivation among accountants and engineers and concluded that those factors that tend to motivate an individual are quite different from those that sustain him and gener­ ally provide for his welfare. Conversely, those factors 42 that sustain and generally provide for an individual's welfare do not motivate him. Herzberg labels that set of factors that tends to motivate, motivators (satisfiers, intrinsic factors, job content factors); and that set of factors that sustains, hygiene factors (dissatisfiers, maintenance factors, job environment factors) (Herzberg, 1966 and Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman, 1959). Motivators consist of such factors as "achievement, recognition, opport_uni ty for promotion, the job itself. etc." Hygiene factors, on the other hand, consist of factors such a.s: job conditions, relationship with supervisor, salary, security, etc. Since Herzberg's model is predicated on the assumed unidimensionality and mutual independence of motivators and dissatisfiers, it has come to be known as two-fa.ctor theory, with designation, theory. applied after the fact. Two-factor, or dual-factor, theory is compelling and intriguing, and during the last decade it has received a plethora of attention. The fact, however, is that the accumulating evidence does not support dual-factor theory, at least not in the rather rigid formulation presented by HerZberg. House and Wigdor (1967) reviewed Herzberg's research and the dual-factor research of 31 other research groups. Ba.sed on their 43 review a.nd evaluation, including an evaluation of Herzberg's methodology and findings, it was concluded that motivators and dissatisfiers are not necessarily always unidimensional and independent. This should not be interpreted to mean that the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic factors is not a use­ ful one. Up to this point a number of theories of leader­ ship and motivation have been reviewed. There are others, of course, but the objective here is not to present an exhaustive review. Rather, the objectives are to illustrate the similarities and diversities of representative groups of theories and to point out their limitations in accounting for, explaining, pre­ dicting, and promoting ma.nagerial success. The fact is tha.t almost all of the theoretical models, leader­ ship or motivation, tend to be grand or global in nature, with objectives that are quite ambitious. This is fine. Such theoretical formulations are needed. They provide useful conceptual frameworks within which certain insights may be gleaned, but they offer little relief in answering the practical questions of who will make good managers, at what time in their lives, in what type positions, in what size and type organizations, 44 using what technology. What is needed to deal with these questions at the present time are not more and more all encompassing grand theories or broa.d spectrum theories, but, rather, a select number of operationally useful, limited domain theories and models. In recent years much of the work of Miner (1961, 1965, 1967, 1968b, 1971, 1973a: Miner and Dachler, 1973; Miner and Smith, 1969; Miner, Rizzo, Harlow, and Hill, 1974) and Ghiselli (1971) has been directed toward this goal. Miner (1976) is convinced that much of the recent progress that has been made in managerial motivation is due the fact that (Miner, 1976, 1"'. 446): the theoretical objectives have been held to manageable proportions; that we have been working out of a limited domain theory, rather than a grand theory; that our theoretical weapon has been more analogous to a rifle or a shotgun with considerable choke, than to a blunderbuss. The goa.l has not been to under­ sta.nd, predict, and control with regard to all human motivation, but to achieve these scientific objectives with regard to the motivation of people in a particular type of 45 job, in a partic'ular type of organization, under a particular kind of control system. Thus the foc'us and purpose of this study is in keeping with limited domain theory. In this and the previous chapter an effort has been made to create a backdrop against which a perspec­ tive of the motivation to manage can be developed and eval'uated. Terms were defi'ned, and several leadership and motivation theories were reviewed. Now in the next chapter a closer look will be taken at motivation to mana,se research and methodology.