Normative Data on the Least-Preferred Co-Worker Scale (LPC) and the Group Atmosphere Questionnaire (GA)

Abstract

This report presents normative data on the means and standard deviations of the Least-Preferred Co-worker scale (LPC) and the Croup Atmosphere acale (CA) for various real-life and laboratory task proups, obtained in recent studies. The I,east Preferred Co-worker scale (LPC) has been used extensively in leadership research by Fiedler and his associates, as w«»ll as bv a prowlnp. number of other Investigators In the area. The score is based on a set of Srcimly CI<m«ific«lion DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA R&D 5iTiif/fv rt*%Mlirmtion ol title, body of mbttrmrt *nd indening mnnotmtitm nmwl be •ntwäwhvntjitjivwlt report la ctmaillfd) i O*))GIN*TINC Ac '' vi r * (iorpormte tuihor)

The layered prisoners' dilemma: Ingroup versus macro-efficiency

“…We used a standard scale (Fiedler, 1967;Posthuma, 1970) to construct a group atmosphere score for each subject. 7 For X-choosers the group rating average was significantly lower in the PCMC than in the USUSF conditions (t = 2.89; p = .005).…”

Alternatives to the Least Preferred Co-Worker Construct

“…To ensure an adequate manipulation on the dimension of LeaderMember Relations, those groups whose leader Group Atmosphere Scale score differed from the normative mean for Group Atmosphere (19) by plus or minus one normative standard deviation were selected for the following analyses. As a result of this screening, 17 of the 48 groups assessed at time one and 22 of the same 48 groups assessed at time two were retained.…”

“…INTRODUCTION Although the psychometric properties of the least preferred co-worker (LPC) scale (7) have been investigated [for a review, see Rice (20)] and substantial normative data have been compiled (19), the conceptual meaning of LPC remains a mystery. The lack of a conceptual interpretation of LPC has been one of the major obstacles to an explanation of the dynamics of the Contingency Model no, 24,25).…”

“…In a classroom setting, groups of airmen completed the 16-item version of the LPC scale (19) and a sociometric scale. On the basis of their scores on the LPC scale, 48 airmen were selected to serve as leaders of fourperson work groups (one half of the designated leaders were selected because they were judgedhigh-LPC and the remainder were Posthuma (19), high and low LPC were defined by selecting airmen who had scored above or below the normative mean by at least one normative standard deviation.…”

The Effects of Leadership Style and Situational Favorability Upon the Perception of Uncertainty and Risk

“…The independent variables were: (a) the identity of the leader in the situation (the subject or an anonymous individual), (b) the subjects' LPC score (high or low), and (c) each of the four situations (octants I, IV, V, and VIII). The categorization of subjects as either high or low LPC was based on the established normative mean for LPC scores (Posthuma, 1970).…”