THE EFFECT OF TYPE A AND TYPE B PERSONALITY

AND LEADERSHIP STYLE ON ABSENTEEISM

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

By

Judith Ann Nichols, B.A.

Denton, Texas

August, 1987

- -- l' 'o- - - -% komm

79

A1,81>1 t{

Nichols, Judith Ann, The Effect of Typq A AndI eyp B

Personality and Leadershi Style _jn Absenteeism. Master of

Science (Industrial/Organizational Psychology), August, 1987,

41 pp., 10 tables, references, 63 titles.

This study explored the relationship of Type A/B

personality and leadership style to absenteeism.

Absenteeism data were gathered for 243 male fire fighters

and fire engineers. Each subject was administered the

Jenkins Activity Scale to measure his Type A characteristics

and the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire to measure

his perception of his supervisor's leadership style. The

results, though non-significant, revealed that: a) Type A's

had less absenteeism than type B's; b) Subjects who

perceived their supervisors as being low on consideration

had less absenteeism than those who perceived their

supervisors as being high on this dimension; c) Type A's

absenteeism was low and Type B's was high when working under

a leader perceived as low on structure. Finally, a weak but

significant three-way interaction effect revealed that the

highest amount of absenteeism occurred when Type B' s worked

under supervisors who were high in consideration and low in

structure. The least amount of absenteeism occurred when

Type A's worked under supervisors who were high in structure

and low in consideration.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES.-.--.-..-.--.- ..----.-..-.-.-.. iv

THE EFFECT OF TYPE A AND TYPE B PERSONALITY AND LEADERSHIPSTYLE ON ABSENTEEISM

Introduction-.-.-.-.---.---.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--

Characteristics of the OrganizationJob SatisfactionPersonal Characteristics of the IndividualType A and Type B BehaviorLeadership StyleRationale and Hypotheses

Method-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-17

SubjectsMeasuresProcedure

Results.----.---.-.---.-.---.-.---.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-20

Hypothesis 1Hypothesis 2Hypothesis 3Supplementary Analysis

Discussion-.---.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.---.-.-.-.-.-.-27

REFERENCES--- - - ---.--.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- 33

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Absenteeism by Hours and Frequencies per Yearand Type A and B Personality. ... ..... 21

2. Absenteeism by Hours and Frequencies per Yearfor Subordinates Working Under Leaders Perceivedas Being High or Low on Consideration....... 21

3. Mean Number of Absenteeism Hours per Year byType A Personality and Structure.. ... ... 23

4. Mean Number of Absence Frequencies per Year byType A and Structure . . .......... 23

5. Summary of Analysis of Variance by Type APersonality and Structure for AbsenteeismHours. .... ............ 24

6. Summary of Analysis of Variance by Type A andStructure for Absence Frequencies. . ..... 24

7. Mean Number of Absenteeism Hours per Year byType A/B x Structure x Consideration ...... 25

8. Summary of Analysis of Variance by Type A,Structure and Consideration.. ....... . 26

9. Mean Number of Absence Frequencies per Yearby Type A/B x Structure x Consideration. . . . 27

10. Summary of Analysis of Variance by Type A,Structure, and Consideration (TotalFrequencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . ........a- 28

iv

THE EFFECT OF TYPE A AND TYPE B PERSONALITY

AND LEADERSHIP STYLE ON ABSENTEEISM

Numerous theories address the causes of absenteeism,

all of which suggest that it is the result of an integrative

process, involving characteristics of the individual, the

informal organization, and the formal organization. Adams

(1965) relates absenteeism to the employee's perception of

inequities at the work place. Thus, an employee may react

by missing work if he feels that he is not receiving

compensation equal to his efforts. Hill and Trist (1962)

view absenteeism as withdrawal from the stress of work

situations. Stress may be caused from dissatisfaction with

the organization and it policies, supervisor and/or co-

worker relationships. Other researchers hold that

absenteeism is the result of social exchange between the

employee and all aspects of the work site. This includes

informal agreements such as co-worker and supervisory

relationships as well formal ones such as contracts and

written policy (Chadwick-Jones, Nicholson, & Brown, 1982).

Previous findings about absenteeism in the literature

have been inconsistent and tenuous, due in part to the lack

of comprehensiveness of research methodologies. Most

studies have focused on only one or two variables and have

not measured the effects of moderating variables. When

1

2

statistical relationships have been found, they have been

low to moderate (Muchinsky, 1977; Chadwick-Jones, Nicholson,

& Brown, 1982; Hacket & Guion, 1985). Nevertheless, some

basic trends may be found.

Characteristics of the Orgnization

In terms of the formal organization, written policy has

been found to influence absenteeism. In a survey of

regional and national control practices, it was found that

companies which recognized good attendance had lower

absenteeism than companies that did not (Scott & Markham,

1982). This general finding has been verified by specific

studies performed in various organizations. Scott, Markham,

and Robers (1985) compared four types of attendance programs

on four plants of the same company. They found that

recognition had a stronger impact on reducing absenteeism

than financial reward, prize reward, or written feedback.

Kopelman and Scheller (1981) found that the attendance of

hospital employees improved with the introduction of a

policy which included reward for good attendance and

punishment for poor attendance. These researchers suggest

that policies do affect employee absences, more so if both

types of reinforcers are used.

A decrease in absenteeism was also found by Olson and

Bangs (1984) when a "no-fault" attendance policy was

introduced in a manufacturing company. By giving employees

more control over the use of their leave time, by

3

establishing attendance standards, and counseling those who

abused standards, absenteeism decreased. In addition, the

replacement of a fixed work schedule with a flex time policy

was shown to decrease absenteeism in female insurance

employees (Krausz & Freibach, 1983).

Though written policy appears to influence absenteeism,

the change may also relate to the attention workers receive

during the development and implementation of the policy.

Porter and Steers (1973) cite several studies which suggest

that the impact of a policy may be due to the fact that

employees are allowed to participate in its creation. A

human factor may be involved here, one of mutual interest

and concern on the part of the organization and the

employees to work for the common good.

Jh atisfaction

Findings in the literature about the relationship of

absenteeism and job satisfaction appear to be inconsistent.

In some studies, there appears to be no correlation (Popp &

Belohlaw, 1982; Keller, 1983) while in others, the

correlation appears to be negative (Porter & Steers, 1973;

Blau, 1985). Blau states that inconsistent findings may be

due to the fact that previous research has not addressed the

different types of satisfaction and absenteeism. For

instance, he found that excused and unexcused absences were

affected by different factors of job satisfaction. He

recommends studying the various components of satisfaction

4

and comparing them to different indices of absenteeism in

order to obtain a more accurate picture.

Recent studies have used validity generalization to

study the relationship. Terborg et al. (1982) reported an

overall negative correlation. They found that satisfaction

with promotion, supervision, and organizational commitment

was generalizable across situations. However, less

consistency was found with satisfaction with co-workers and

pay. Scott and Taylor (1985) employed meta-analysis to

review 23 studies. They also found an inverse relationship

between absenteeism and satisfaction with the job and co-

workers.

However, Nicholson et al. (1976) did not find that

absenteeism was related to job satisfaction using validity

generalization. Hackett and Guion (1985) determined that

less than four percent of the variance in absence measures

was associated with job dissatisfaction. They argue that

correlations found in previous studies do not indicate true

relationships, but are due to statistical artifacts. They

state that job satisfaction by itself is not enough to

warrant absenteeism and recommend that research should be

aimed at determining those factors external to the

organization which would draw someone away from work as

opposed to those organizational factors which inhibit one

from going to work.

5

Personal Characteristics of the Individual

Findings in this area are more representative for males

than females. There are indications that females may have

more absences than males (Keller, 1983), which may be due in

part to family obligations. Blau (1985) found that number

of dependents relates positively to leave taken due to

family illness. Muchinsky (1977) reports similar findings

in that employees with large immediate families have more

absences than those with smaller ones.

Concerning age, Muchinsky (1977) found that past

literature was inconsistent, but Chadwick-Jones, Nicholson,

and Brown (1982) reported that it was inversely related to

the number of absences from work. Younger workers seem more

inclined than older ones to take frequent absences of short

duration. These researchers suggest that inconsistencies in

the literature may exist because the relationship is

curvilinear. The availability of earned compensatory time

increases with tenure; thus, older workers may take extended

leave for vacation or illness.

It has also been found that absenteeism increases just

prior to an individual quitting or leaving work. In

addition, long term employees (those who stay with an

organization for a long period of time) have less

absenteeism than "leavers" (Martin, 1971; Burke & Wilcox,

1972; Chadwick-Jones, Nicholson, & Brown, 1982; Popp &

Belohlav, 1982; Keller, 1983).

6

The relationship of absenteeism and personality

variables has not been explored extensively in the

literature. Employees with high self esteem and high

internal health locus of control have been found to miss

work less often than those with opposite characteristics

(Keller, 1983) while employees with high levels of manifest

anxiety have been found to miss more (Muchinsky, 1977).

More research is needed to determine the effects of

individual characteristics on absenteeism. Many researchers

advocate studying absenteeism as a result of the interaction

between the individual and his work environment (Schulert,

1982; Arsenault & Dolan, 1983; Ivancevich & Matteson, 1984).

They recommend studying Type A characteristics of the

subordinate and management style of the supervisor.

Type A and Type B Behavior

The research of coronary heart disease by Friedman and

Rosenman (1959) linked its occurrence to a response style

known as Type A. Individuals with a Type A style tend to

exhibit behaviors of enhanced competition and aggression.

They appear to have feelings of hostility and are driven by

a race against time. In contrast, individuals with a Type B

style tend to be more relaxed and approach situations in a

steady, unhurried and non-competitive manner (Ivancevich &

Matteson, 1984).

The response style of Type A individuals may be viewed

as a struggle against the environment, objects, and people

7

(Friedman, Brown, & Rosenman, 1969). Glass (1977) proposed

that they may be responding out of an attempt to gain and

maintain control over life's events. Support for this idea

has been demonstrated in various studies. Type A's have

been found to be more reluctant than Type B's to relinquish

control to another person on numerous types of tasks (Strube

& Werner, 1985; Miller, Lack, & Asroff, 1985; Strube, Berry,

& Moegan, 1985). Results of these studies indicate that

even when working with a more competent partner, the Type A

may have difficulty sharing his workload with others or

delegating assignments.

The Type A individual has also been found to be very

focused in his approach to situations. In the laboratory,

the Type A, more than the Type B, will attend to stimuli

which occur with greater frequency as opposed to lesser

frequency and will attend to tasks portrayed as important or

central as opposed to those portrayed as peripheral

(Matthews & Brunson, 1979; Humphries, Carver, & Neuman,

1983). In the applied setting, Type A medical students

have been found to earn poorer grades on elective courses

than their Type B peers (Jones, 1985). It is possible that

the Type A focuses on those tasks perceived to be important

in order to establish a sense of control over them.

Past research has indicated that the Type A is greatly

concerned about time. In an experiment involving

interaction with a counselor, Type A individuals exhibited

8

more anxiety than the Type B's when the allotted time for

the interaction was not made known. They talked much faster

and more (Kelly & Stone, 1982). Type A's have also been

found to respond with increased heart activity on a

perceptual task where time and competitiveness were

emphasized. They took a longer period of time to recover

than the Type B's following the task and reported feeling

more angry, impatient, and time pressured (Hart & Jamieson,

1983). Type A's have been found to complete school exams

faster than Type B's (Becker & Suls, 1982) and arrive

earlier to participate in experiments (Gastorf, 1980). They

have also demonstrated more signs of impatience and

irritation when slowed downed by a confederate on a joint

decision making task (Glass et al., 1974).

Tied in with the Type A's need to control and feelings

of time pressure, are aggression and competitiveness which

may be exhibited in group situations. When given the choice

to respond in a cooperative or competitive manner on a group

simulation game, the Type A's were found to respond with a

competitive approach. Their behavior indicated a win-lose

as opposed to a win-win orientation and stimulated

aggressiveness within the group (Stensrud, 1985). In

another simulation game, two partners were given the

opportunity to respond to each other via message. Their

communication tended to be aggressive and they engaged in a

struggle for dominance. Such stress may be the reason why

mo lwjwwwmww smamommomm

9

Type A's have been found to prefer working alone rather than

in a group when performing under pressure (Dembroski &

MacDougall, 1978).

In addition to coronary heart disease, Type A

characteristics have been linked to sleep disorders, chest

pains, gastrointestinal and respiratory illness (Stout &

Bloom, 1982; Woods & Burns, 1984). It also appears that

Type A's may take less action to alleviate the symptoms of

their illness than Type B's. In one study of Type A medical

students, despite respiratory infection, their daily

activity remained basically the same, while their Type B

peers took medications, got more rest, and stayed home from

class (Stout & Bloom, 1982). Type A's have been found to

follow doctor's orders less well when receiving treatment

for injuries and physicians have rated for injuries and

physicians have rated their recovery as being less

satisfactory than Type B's (Rhodewalt & Strube, 1985).

It appears that by ignoring treatment of their illness,

Type A's may be denying its existence. In fact, when put

through a rigorous physical task, Type A's were found to

exert themselves more than Type B's, but reported feeling

less fatigue (Carver, Coleman, & Glass, 1976). They have

also shown more denial of physiological stress when exposed

to an aversive noise situation (Weidner & Matthews, 1978).

It appears that the Type A may not admit that he has an

illness or take steps to alleviate the problem. Long term

health abuse may eventually lead to a physical breakdown

such as coronary heart disease.

Research concerning the social interaction of Type A's

and Type B's reveals that the former may be more oriented

towards work related activities rather than interpersonal

relationships. It has been found that they feel

uncomfortable in group situations and experience

dissatisfaction with their relationships with others

(Jenkins, Zyzanski, Ryan, Fleases, & Tannenbaum, 1977;

Price, 1982). Type A's have also been found to have fewer

good friends and do not talk about their problems to help

alleviate stress (Burke, Weir, & DuWors, 1979). It appears

that the Type A individual is not as comfortable socially as

the Type B.

The behavior of Type A's has also been studied in the

school and work environment. Generally, findings have

indicated that Type A's experience more stress than Type B's

in these settings. In a study of physical therapy students,

Type A's reported feeling more anxious, hostile and

depressed throughout the school term. The differences

between A's and B's were stronger during those times of the

year considered to be the most trying (the beginning of each

quarter and during mid-terms and final exams) (Francis,

1981). On the job, Type A middle managers appear to be

affected by role conflict. They report feeling more

psychological and physical strain as a result of this

11

conflict than Type B's (Orpen, 1982). When studying

managers and nurses, Ivancevich, Matteson, and Preston

(1982) found similar results. They discovered that Type A's

experienced stressful reactions to quantitative work load.

The most stress was due to those events which were

considered to be difficult to control, including role

conflict, work load, and supervisory relations. It is

interesting to note that though the Type A experiences more

stress concerning his work, he is still more task oriented

than the Type B.

It is possible that the characteristics of the Type A

may affect absenteeism in a different manner than those of

the Type B. Some researchers advocate studying the effects

of the interaction between the Type A individual and his

work environment in terms of absenteeism (Ivancevich &

Matteson, 1984; Schulter, 1982). Previous research has

indicated that Type A and B differences are most easily

observed in stressful situations (Carver & Glass, 1978;

Becker & Suls, 1982; Humphries, Carver, & Neuman, 1983).

Thus, it is important to examine possible differences

between A's and B's in stressful and non-stressful working

conditions. One factor which has been found to contribute

to feelings of stress on the job is leadership style.

Leadership Style

The study of leadership has been influenced greatly by

the X-Y theory of management first proposed by McGregor

12

(1960). Type X managers operate under the premise that

competitiveness is inherent in organizational structure.

They perceive winning to be possible only if someone else

loses. Type Y managers, on the other hand, assume a more

cooperative approach to their interactions. They perceive

situations as being mutually beneficial where both parties

may share in the winning.

Building on McGregor's concept, researchers at Ohio

State University (Fleishman & Harris, 1962; Halpin, 1957)

developed scales to measure differences in leadership

styles. They found that consideration and structure were

two of the primary factors involved in distinguishing leader

types. Consideration was defined as behavior which

indicates mutual trust, warmth, respect, and rapport between

a leader and his subordinates. Structure was related to how

a leader organizes, plans, defines, and delegates tasks.

The effects of these leadership styles were linked to

the organizational outcomes of grievances and turnover.

Fleishman and Harris (1962) found that production foreman

who were high on consideration and low on structure had a

smaller number of grievances and less turnover in their work

group than foreman who were low on consideration and high on

structure. High levels of consideration seemed to

compensate for high levels of structure, but no level of

structure compensated for the negative effects of low

consideration.

13

An additional study linked leadership style to

productivity. Kahn and Katz (1960) found that highly

productive groups were not closely supervised and had

leaders who took a personal interest in employees. Low

productive groups were given detailed instructions from

their supervisors, had work checked frequently, and were

limited in freedom to make decisions. In short, leaders who

had a strong employee orientation had more productive

workers than those who were task oriented.

More recent studies have shown the relationship of

leadership style to individual outcomes such as stress,

health, and job satisfaction. LaRocco and Jones (1978)

found a positive correlation between supervisory support and

job satisfaction among Navy enlisted men. Stout (1984)

explored job satisfaction, stress, and health problems among

rehabilitation workers. He found that employees who rated

their supervisors high on consideration reported more job

satisfaction than those who rated them low on this

dimension. In addition, those who rated their supervisors

high on both structure and consideration reported less

stress and health problems. Similar findings were reported

by Duxbury, Armstrong, Drew, and Henley (1984), who studied

satisfaction and job burnout among nurses. Those who rated

their supervisors high on consideration reported more

satisfaction and less acute stress. In has also been found

that a cooperative leadership style correlated with

14

satisfaction of subordinates, desire to perform well and

stay on the job (Tjosveld, Andrews, & Jones, 1983).

Though the above findings reveal a relationship between

leadership style and various outcomes, other research

indicates that relationships may not be clear-cut. For

instance, Korman (1966) summarized the literature on

consideration and structure and determined that findings

were inconsistent. It is his opinion that situational

variables have not been taken into account in leadership

studies. Schriesheim (1977) feels that previous studies

have lacked an adequate theoretical base. He also claims

that the instruments used to measure leadership style are

low on validity.

Contrary to those beliefs, Kerr et al., (1974) claim

that the scales used to measure structure and consideration

are theoretically and factorily sound. They advocate

Fiedler's (1967) contingency theory of leadership which

holds that the effectiveness of a leader is due to the

interaction of the characteristics of the leader and those

of the situation. The favorableness of a situation is

determined by the quality of leader-subordinate

relationships, the amount of structure inherent in the task

being performed and the status or power associated with the

leader's position. In a situation which is either extremely

favorable or unfavorable, it is hypothesized that a task

oriented leader would be more effective. In a moderately

Iftfi 01- ,

15

favorable situation, a considerate leader would be more

effective.

Kerr et al. (1974) showed that inconsistent findings

regarding leadership may exist, but that it is due to

'the complexity of the situations in which it is studied.

They cite numerous findings dealing with the affects of

moderating variables which indicate that relationships may

be studied using the contingency framework. For example,

the more pressure which subordinates feel about their work

increases the positive relationship between leadership

structure and subordinate satisfaction and performance.

Intrinsic task satisfaction serves to decrease a positive

relationship between structure, consideration and

performance. Generally speaking, the more subordinates are

dependent upon the leader for their needs and the more a

leader is able to satisfy their needs, the greater the

positive relationship will be between the measure of

leadership style and employee satisfaction and performance.

Despite the controversy of leadership theories,

researchers agree that it is an important area which needs

further study. Meyer (1982) advocates identifying

situational variables in future studies to determine their

moderating effects. Kerr et al. (1974) and Schriesheim

(1977) agree, and list such things as leader behavior

consistency, attribution effects and subordinate

personalities as areas to explore further.

-4,., "1 - - - --- - 2qmN1miw6dt-; , "7.-

16

It appears that there is enough evidence to indicate

that supervisory style is a general contributor to feelings

of stress on the job. It is possible that dissatisfaction,

stress, and health problems associated with leadership style

may influence absenteeism levels. One potential moderating

variable may be the personality of the subordinate, namely

Type A or Type B.

Rationale and Hypotheses

Type A individuals have a sense of time urgency, a need

to control, and a strong task orientation. These

characteristics may serve to motivate them to attend work to

complete projects and fulfill obligations. They may find it

difficult to take leave from work as they are not prone to

slowing down, relaxing, spending time with loved ones,

preventing or recovering from illness.

Type B individuals are more relaxed in their approach,

tend to be more socially oriented, take care of their health,

and lack the extreme sense of time urgency which Type A's

possess. They may be more likely to take leave from work in

order to satisfy needs for relaxation and social life.

Hypothesis 1: Type A's would have less absenteeism

than Type B's regardless of their perception of the

leadership style of their supervisor.

It has been shown that leaders who are low on

consideration are more likely to have dissatisfied

subordinates and high levels of turnover within their work

S _________________________________________________________________

17

group. Likewise, dissatisfaction and turnover have been

related to increased levels of absenteeism.

Hypothesis 2: Subordinates who perceive their leaders

as being low on consideration would have greater levels of

absenteeism than those who perceive their leaders as being

high on consideration.

It has been found that differences between Type A and

Type B individuals tend to be more noticeable in stressful

situations. A highly task oriented leader may increase

tension on the job due to his emphasis on task completion,

production, and deadlines. Under a task oriented leader,

the Type A subordinate may take less leave in order to meet

supervisory expectations. The Type B suborinate may react

in an opposite manner and take leave in order to relax and

prevent illness.

Hypothesis 3: Type A subordinates who perceive their

leaders as being high on structure would have less

absenteeism than those who perceive their leaders as being

low on structure. In contrast, Type B subordinates would

have greater levels of absenteeism when working under a

leader perceived as being high on structure versus low on

structure.

Method

Subjecgts

A total of 243 male fire fighters and fire engineers

were the subjects for the study. This occupational group

18

was selected because of the high degree of stress associated

with the work. Specifically, these incumbents face life

threatening situations which cause emotional and physical

stress. This could serve to accentuate the observable

differences between Type A's and B's.

Ages of the participants ranged from 21 to 56 years,

with the median age being 30. Fifty percent of the group

was between 21 and 30 years of age. Average tenure was

about seven years. The tenure range for the group was from

1 to 28 years, with 60 percent having seven years or less

experience as a fireman. Nearly three-fourths of the group

were married, one-fourth were single, with the remainder

(.4%) divorced. Approximately 70 percent of the sample was

white, with the remainder split between hispanic and black.

Measures

To determine Type A and B personality, the Jenkins

Activity Scale Scale was administered (Jenkins, Zyzanski, &

Rosenman, 1965). This is a forced-choice questionnaire

containing 52 items. The Leader Behavior Description

Questionnaire (LBDQ) (Halpin, 1957) was used to determine

the fireman's perception of his supervisor's leadership

style. It consists of a structure scale and a consideration

scale, each with 40 items.

Procedure

Subjects participated in the study during their normal

work hours. They were given a brief description of the

19

contents of each test and given basic instructions on how to

complete them. The incumbents were informed of the study by

the Fire Chief. Though they were encouraged to participate,

it was not mandatory.

Classification of Type A and B individuals was

according to the score received on the Jenkins A sub-scale

which provides a measure of the overall Type A trait. Those

scoring in the upper third of the sample range (scores

greater than or equal to 249) were classified as Type A.

Those scoring in the bottom third of the sample range

(scores less than or equal to 173) were classified as Type

B.

Classification of an employee's LBDQ score was also

according to the upper and lower sample third. A score less

than or equal to 36 was classified as low on structure. A

score greater than or equal to 43 was classified as high on

structure. For consideration, scores less than or equal to

38 were classified as low on consideration. Scores greater

than or equal to 46 were classified as high on

consideration.

Absenteeism was measured by number of leave hours and

number of frequencies for one calendar year. As discussed

by Hackett and Guion (1985), these two types of absence

measures reveal two different factors. Leave hours relate

to involuntary absences. These are absences outside of the

employee's control such as sickness or funeral leave.

20

Frequencies relate to voluntary absences which are within

the employee's control. This includes "playing sick" or

missing work simply because one doesn't feel like going.

Each of the 243 subjects received three test scores.

However, if a score fell within the middle third range of

the sample, it was not used in the statistical analyses. In

addition, absenteeism records for some of the subjects were

missing. Thus, the n's vary slightly for each computation.

Results

Hypothesis 1

Type A's would have less absenteeism than Type B's

regardless of their perception of the leadership style of

their supervisor.

The data pertaining to Hypothesis 1 are presented in

Table 1 for both leave hours and frequencies of absence. A

one-way _ test revealed no significant difference in

absenteeism levels for Type A and Type B individuals on

total hours, L(143) = 1.34, p > .05 or total frequency,

_(143) = .79, : = .10. Though the differences between the

two groups was in the expected direction, it appears that

the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. Type A's did not

have less absenteeism than Type B's.

Hypothsis 2

Subordinates who perceive their leaders as being low on

consideration would have greater levels of absenteeism than

those who perceive their leaders as being high on consideration.

21

Table 1

Absenteeism by Hours and Frequencies per Yearand Type A and B Personality

Type A Type B

M SD N M SD N

Hours 202.71 129.49 73 231.43 110.58 72

Frequencies 4.18 2.75 73 4.54 2.79 72

These results are printed in Table 2. A one way L

test revealed no significant difference in total absenteeism

hours for subordinates who perceived their supervisors as

being high on consideration versus low, 1(144) = -1.04, pR>

.10. Nor was a significant difference found on total number

of frequencies, 1(144) = -1.47, p > .05.

Table 2

Absenteeism by Hours and Frequencies per Year forSubordinates Working Under Leaders Perceived as

Being High or Low on Consideration

High on Low on

Consideration Consideration

M SD N M SD N

Hours 237.22 15.20 74 215.64 14.31 72

Frequencies 4.84 2.99 74 4.15 2.61 72

The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. In fact,

22

though non-significant, the data indicate that the trend is

in the opposite direction from what was predicted. Namely,

supervisors who are high on consideration may have

subordinates with greater absenteeism than those who are

low on this dimension.

Hypothesis 3

Type A subordinates who perceive their leaders as

being high on structure would have less absenteeism than

those who perceive their leaders as being low on structure.

In contrast, Type B subordinates would have greater levels

of absenteeism when working under a leader perceived as

being high on structure versus low on structure.

The descriptive data pertaining to this hypothesis are

presented in Table 3 for hours of absence and Table 4 for

frequency of absence. Inspections of the means in Tables 3

and 4 indicate an interaction in the opposite direction

from what was expected. For total hours and frequencies,

Type A subordinates who perceived their supervisors as

being high on structure had more absences than Type A's who

worked under supervisors low on this dimension. The

opposite was found for Type B's. The least absenteeism was

found for Type A individuals working under leaders low on

structure. The highest absenteeism was found for Type B

individuals working under leaders low on structure.

The analysis of variance (Tables 5 and 6) indicated

that the findings were significant for total frequencies,

fwwmw" - 10jamofforem

23

Table 3

Mean Number of Absenteeism Hours per Year by Type APersonality and Structure

Type A Type B

M SD N M SD- N

LowStructure 188.73 115.427 26 237.64 119.359 25

HighStructure 214.60 149.438 25 207.14 116.865 22

Table 4

Mean Number of Absence Frequencies per Yearby Type A and Structure

Type A Type B

M SD N M SD N

LowStructure 3.35 1.832 26 4.85 2.672 25

HighStructure 4.68 3.250 25 3.91 3.069 22

E(1, 94) 4.163, p = .004. However, findings were not

significant for total hours, E(l, 94) = 1.27, p .273.

Though the differences in cell means were relatively large,

there was a large overlap in the variance measures which may

have made it difficult to obtain significance.

24

Table 5

Summary of Analysis of Variance by Type A Personalityand Structure for Absenteeism Hours

SD DF MS F SF

Main Effects 11,814.806 2 5,907.403 .371 .691

Type A/B 11,752.230 1 11,752.230 .738 .393

Structure 30.378 1 30.378 .002 .965

2 Way Interaction

A/B x Structure 19,387.360 1 19,387.360 1.217 .273

Explained 31,202.166 3 10,400.722 .653 .583

Residual 1,497,771.466 94 15,933.739

Total 1,528,973.633 97 15,762.615

Table 6

Summary of Analysis of Variance by Type A andStructure for Absence Frequencies

SD DF MS F SF

Main Effects 5.522 2 2.761 .367 .694

Type A/B 4.105 1 4.105 .546 .462

Structure 1.525 1 1.525 .203 .653

2 Way Interaction

A/B x Structure 31.291 1 31.291 4.163 .044

Explained 37.814 1 12.271 1.163 .187

Residual 706.503 94 7.516

Total 743.316 97 7.663

25

SuRlementary Analysis

Though no predictions were made concerning three way

interactions, a 2 x 2 x 2 analysis of variance was run for

total hours by the three dimensions. A significant 3-way inter-

raction was found as indicated in Tables 7 and 8, F(l, 58)

10.029, p .002. The lowest number of hours was for the

Type A/high structure/low consideration group. The highest

number was for the Type B/low structure/high consideration group.

There was a difference of 196.99 hours between the two groups.

Table 7

Mean Number of Absenteeism Hours per Year by TypeA/B x Structure x Consideration

Low Structure High Structure

Type A

Low

Type B

Type A

High

Type B

M

SD

N

M

SD

M

M

SD

N

m

SD

N

225.50

85.981

10

220.00

102.853

10

137.87

146.925

8

305

121.651

8

187.33

121.179

6

334.86

111.589

7

261.78

134.910

9

174.46

127.306

13

- 0000 oammomm -wo I

26

Table 8

Summary of Analysis of Variance by Type A, Structureand Consideration (Total Hours)

Source of Sum of Mean Sig.Variation Squares DF Squares F of F

Main Effects

GroupA

GroupST

GroupCo

2-WayInteractions

GroupA/GroupST

GroupA/GroupCO

GroupSt/GroupCO

3-WayInteractions

GroupA/GroupST/GroupCo

Explained

Residual

Total

51,068.889

6,836.318

33,461.082

15,244.124

22,612.940

12,469.805

2,481.328

809.594

143,636.137

143,636.137

21,317.966

830,670.352

1,047,988.318

3

I

1

I

17, 022. 963

6,836. 318

33,461.082

15,244.124

3 7,537.647

1 12,469.805

1 2,481.328

1 809.594 0.057

1 143,636.137

1

7

58

65

143,636.137

31,045.424

14,321.903

16,122.897

10.029

10.029

2.168

Concerning frequency

another significant 3-way

5.169, = .027. In this

of absences (Tables 9 and 10),

interaction was found, F(1, 58)

case, the highest frequencies and the

lowest were found with two Type B groups. The low

1.189

0.477

2.336

1.064

0.526

0.871

0.173

0.322

0.492

0.132

0.306

0.666

0.355

0.679

0.813

0. 002*

0. 002*

0.050

27

structure/high consideration group had 3.48 more frequencies

than the high structure/high consideration group.

Table 9

Mean Number of Absence Frequencies Per Year byType A/B x Structure x Consideration

Low Structure High Structure

Type A M 4.10 3.5

SD 1.37 1.517Low

N 10 6

Type B M 3.5 5.11

SD 3.381 2.934

N 10 9

Type A M 4.3 6.86

SD 2.669 2.268High

N 10 7

Type B M 5.33 3.38

SD 5.132 3.070

N 3 13

Discussion

While the difference was not significant, Type A's had

less absenteeism than Type B's for both total hours and

frequencies. The difference was in the predicted direction.

The extreme orientation which Type A's have towards their

28

Table 10

Summary of Analysis of Variance by Type A, Structure,Consideration (Total Frequencies)

and

Source of Sum of Mean Sig of.Variation Squares DF Squares F F

Main Effects

GroupA

GroupST

GroupCo

2-WayInteractions

GroupA/GroupST

GroupA/GroupCo

GroupST/GroupCo

3-WayInteractions

GroupA/GroupSt/GroupCo

Explained

Residual

Total

13.216

1.945

7.808

4.591

22.746

16.960

0.135

1.777

39.033

39.033

74.995

437.990

512.985

3

I

1

1

3

3

1

I

1

7

58

65

4.405

1.945

7.808

4.591

0.583

0.258

1.034

0.608

7.582 1.004

16.960 2.246

0.135 0.018

1.777 0.235

39.033 5.169

39.033

10.714

7.552

7.892

5.169

1.419

.628

.614

.313

.439

.398

.139

.894

.629

.027*

.027*

.215

work, as discussed in previous literature, may motivate them

to attend work more frequently than Type B's.

Concerning leader consideration, the results of the study

were in the opposite direction form what was predicted. Though

29

insignificant, the findings showed that leaders who were

perceived as being low on consideration had subordinates

with less absenteeism than leaders who were high on

consideration. Though previous literature has indicated

that subordinates who perceive their leaders as being low

on consideration are more dissatisfied than those working

for leaders who are high on consideration, this

dissatisfaction did not result in more absenteeism for the

subjects of this study.

It is possible that leaders who are high on

consideration may encourage subordinates to take leave, rest

and enjoy themselves away from work. They may encourage a

relaxed atmosphere where subordinates feel comfortable about

asking for and taking time off. The reverse would be true

for those who perceive their leaders as being low on

consideration. Leaders who are low on consideration may

discourage taking leave by showing little regard for their

employees' personal needs.

Concerning leader structure, the findings indicated

that Type and Type B groups responded differently to leader,

structure and in an opposite direction from what was

hypothesized. It is important to note, however, that the

results did not reach significant for hours of absence and

just barely reached significance for frequency. The fact

that Type A individuals had less absenteeism with leaders

perceived as low versus high on structure could be due to an

30

effort on the part of the Type A's to compensate for their

leaders' lack of structure. Not knowing exactly what is

expected, they may set their own standards high and feel

compelled to attend work on a stricter schedule than what

has been set.

In contrast, Type B individuals had less absenteeism

when working under leaders perceived as being high on

structure as opposed to low on structure. Leaders who are

high on structure may emphasize production and good

attendance. Their structure may motivate the relaxed, Type

B employee into better attendance than he would have if

specific standards had not been set.

Some of the results of the 3-way supplementary analyses

of variance were significant. The trend for Type B's to

have more absenteeism working for the leaders who are high

on consideration and low on structure was repeated here.

Type A's were found to have the least number of absence

hours for leaders who were high on structure and low on

consideration. This finding is not consistent with other

results in the study for Type A's, but it is consistent with

the original hypothesis. However, it is the researcher's

opinion that the significant findings in the analyses do

not indicate actual differences, but are due to statistical

artifacts. The number of subjects in each cell was so small

that the results are highly tenuous.

31

There are several factors which may have contributed to

the non-significance of the results. There was a large

overlap in the absenteeism variances which made significance

difficult to obtain. Individual differences in absenteeism

could also have been decreased due to an organizational

policy which required that certain types of leave, such as

vacation, had to be scheduled approximately one year in

advance of actual use. Also, a certain amount of leave time

per year was allotted each employee which he had to use or

lose.

The work performed by fire fighters is different than

that of the corporate or student population form which

subjects are usually drawn. Fireman face extreme physical

hazards as opposed to work load demands. Their work is

highly structured with little ambiguity in tasks or

organizational relationships. In addition, their work

schedule is a 24 hours on, 48 hours off basis, which

provides a two day rest. They share the same living

quarters and perform household tasks together. It is

possible that if a student or corporate population had been

used, significant results would have been obtained.

Further study is recommended in this area to determine

if the trends in the data may be proven significant for

different groups such as students or corporate employees.

If Type A's generally have less absences than Type B's, it

may be wise to encourage them to take an appropriate leave

32

of absence rather than work their way to irrevocable poor

health. In contrast, if organizational efficiency is

hindered due to poor employee attendance, a little more

structure may be necessary for improvement. As previous

literature suggests, this structure could be given in the

form of fair written policy as opposed to harsh discipline.

33

REFERENCES

Adams, J.S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances

in Exerimental Social Psycholo2gy, , 267-299.

Arsenault, A. & Shemon, D. (1983). The role of

personality, occupation and organization in understanding

the relationship between job stress, performance, and

absenteeism. Journal off Occupational Psychology, 56,

227-240.

Becker, M. A., & Suls, J. (1982). Test performance as a

function of the hard-driving and speed components of the

Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern. Journal of

Psychosomatic Research, 2R_, 435-440.

Blau, G. (1985). Relationship of extrinsic, intrinsic, and

demographic predictors to various types of withdrawal

behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1.0, 442-450.

Burke, R. J.., & Wilcox, D. S. (1972). Absenteeism and

turnover among female telephone operators. Personnel

Phyiqllogy, 5, 639-648.

Carver, C. S., & Glass, D. C. (1978). Coronary prone

behavior pattern and interpersonal aggression. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, __, 361-366.

Carver, C. S., Coleman, A. E., & Glass, D. C. (1976). The

coronary-prone behavior pattern and the suppression of

fatigue on a treadmill test. Journal of Personality and

Social Psycholoy, 33, 460-466.

34

Chadwick-Jones, J. K., Nicholson, N., & Brown, C. (1982).

Social psycho of absenteeism. New York: Praeger

Publishers.

Dembroski, T. M. & MacDougall, J. M. (1978). Stress

effects on affiliation preferences among subjects

possessing the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern.

Journal of Personalitay nd Social Psych v;)6gy, 3, 23-32.

Duxbury, M. L., Armstrong, G. D., Drew, D. J., & Henley, S.

J. (1984). Head nurse leadership style with staff nurse

burnout and job satisfaction in neonatal intensive care

units. Nursing Research, 13, 97-101.

Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadershiO effectiveness.

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of

leadership behavior related to employee grievances and

turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15, 43-56.

Francis, K. T. (1981). Perceptions of anxiety, hostility

and depression in subjects exhibiting the coronary-prone

behavior pattern. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 16,

183-190.

Friedman, M. & Rosenman, R. H. (1959). Association of

specific overt behavior pattern with blood and

cardiovascular findings. Journal of American Mental

Association, '188, 1286-1296.

Gastorf, J. W. (1980). Time urgency of the Type A behavior pat-

tern. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 299.

35

Glass, D., Snyder, M., & Hollis, J. (1974). Time

consciousness and the Type A coronary-prone behavior

pattern. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 125-140.

Glass, D. C. (1977). Behavior patterns, stress and

coronary disease. Hilldale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hackett, R. D.., & Guion, R. M. (1985). A revaluation of

the absenteeism-job satisfaction relationship.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 5,

340-381.

Halpin, A. W. (1957). Manual for the leader behavior

description questionnaire. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of

Business Research, College of Commerce and

Administration, Ohio State University.

Hart, K. E., & Jamieson, J. L. (1983). Type A behavior and

cardiovascular recovery from a psychosocial stressor.

Journal of Human Stress, 9, 18-24.

Hill, J. M., & Trist, E. L. (1962). Industrial accident,

sickness and _other absences. Tavistock Pamphlet no. 4.

London: Tavistock Publications.

Humphries, C., Carver, C. S., & Neumann, P. G. (1983).

Cognitive characteristics of the Type A coronary-prone

behavior pattern. Journal of Personality and Social

Psycwholgy, 44, 177-187.

Ivancevich, J. M., & Matteson, M. T. (1984). A type A-B

person-work environment interaction model for examining

36

occupational stress and consequences. Human Relations,

-37, 491-513.

Ivancevich, J. M., Matteson, M. T., & Preston, C. (1982).

Occupational stress, Type A behavior and physical well-

being. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 373-391.

Jenkins, C. D., Rosenman, R. H., & Zyzanski, S. J. (1965).

The Jenkins activity survey for health prediction.

Chapel Hill, NC: C. David Jenkins.

Jenkins, C. D., Zyzanski, S. J., Ryan, T. J., Fleases, A., &

Tannenbaum, S. E. (1977). Social insecurity and

coronary prone Type A responses as identifiers of severe

artero sclerosis. Journal of Consultin and Clinical

Pss~hoogy, 4i, 1060-1067.

Jones, K. V. (1985). Type A and academic performance: A

negative relationship. Psychological Reports, 56, 260.

Kahn, R. L., & Katz, D. (1960). Leadership practices in

relation to productivity and morale. In Cartwright and

Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics, pp. 554-570.

Keller, R. T. (1983). Predicting absenteeism from prior

absenteeism, attitudinal factors, and nonattitudinal

factors. Journal of Apnlied Psychology, 8, 536-540.

Kelly, K. R., & Stone, G. L. (1982). Effects of time limit

on the interview behavior of Type A and B persons within

a brief counseling analog. Journal ofCounseling

Psy-choQgy, 29, 454-459.

37

Kerr, S., Schriesheim, C. A., Murphy, C. J., & Stogdill, R.

M. (1974). Toward a contingency theory of leadership

based upon the consideration and initiating structure

literature. Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, _2, 62-82.

Kopelman, R. E., & Schneller, G. 0. IV (1981). A mixed

consequence system for reducing overtime and unscheduled

absences. Journal _f Organizational Behavior Management,

3, 17-28.

Korman, A. (1966). Consideration, initiating structure,

and organizational criteria--a review. Personnel

Psychology, 19, 349-361.

Krausz, M., & Freibach, N. (1983). Effects of flexible

working time for employed women upon satisfaction,

strains, and absenteeism. Journal of Occupational

Psycholopgy, 56, 155-159.

LaRocco, J. M., & Jones, A. P. (1978). Co-worker and

leader support as moderators of stress-strain

relationships in work situations. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 63, 629-634.

Martin, J. (1971). Leavers have higher absence rates than

stayers: Some aspects of absence in a light engineering

factory. Occupational Psychology, 45, 77-89.

Matthews, K. A., & Brunson, B. 1. (1979). Allocation of

attention and the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern.

38

Journal af Personality and S4ocial Psychol ogy, 3, 2081-

2090.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enteprise. New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Meyer, H. H. (1982). Whither leadership and supervision?

Professional Psycholo, 13, 930-941.

Miller, S. M., Lack, E. R., & Asroff, S. (1985).

Preference for control and the coronary-prone behavior

pattern: " I'd rather do it myself." Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, m49, 297-304.

Muchinsky, P. M. (1977). Employee absenteeism: A review

of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, _IQ,

316-340.

Nicholson, N., Brown, C. A., & Chadwick-Jones, J. K.

(1976). Absence from work and job satisfaction. Journal

of Applied Psychology, g, 728-737.

Olson, D., & Bangs, R. (1984). No-fault attendance

control: A real world application. Personnel

Administrator, 29, 53-56.

Orpen, C. (1982). Type A personality as a moderator of the

effects of role conflict, role ambiguity and role

overload on the individual strain. Journal of Human

Stress, 8, 8-14.

Popp, P. 0. & Belohlav, J. A. (1982). Absenteeism in a low

status work environment. Academy of Management Journal,

.5, 677-683.

39

Porter, L. W.., & Steers, R. M. (19973). Organizational,

work, and personal factors in employee turnover and

absenteeism. Psychological Bul1etin, 801, 151-176.

Price, V. A. (1982). Type A behavior pattern. New York:

Academic Press.

Rhodewalt, F., & Strube, M. (1985). A self-attribution

reactance model of recovery from injury in Type A

individuals. Journal _of Applied Social PsycholoY, _,

:330-334.

Schuler, R. S. (1982). An integrative transactional model

of stress in organizations. Journal of Occupational

Behavior, ., 5-19.

Schriesheim, C. (1977). In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson

(Eds.), Leadership. the cuttin edge. Carbondale, Il:

SIU Press.

Scott, K. D., & Markham, S. E. (1982). Absenteeism control

methods: A survey of practices and results. Personnel,

Administrator, 27, 73-85.

Scott, K. D., Markham, S. E., & Robers, R. W. (1985).

Rewarding good attendance: A comparative study of

positive ways to reduce absenteeism. Personnel

Administrator, 1_, 72-83.

Scott, K. D., & Taylor, G. S. (1985). An examination of

conflicting findings on the relationship between job

satisfaction and absenteeism: A meta-analysis. Academy

of Management, 28, 599-612.

,'JW q."iww om'', W-W Illiffimpoll a -1-11 1 1 "1 won, 011,11,11

40

Stensrud, R. (1985). Type A behavior pattern and tendency

to cooperate or complete during a simulation, negotiation

activity. Psychological Reports, 5_7, 917-918.

Stout, C. W., & Bloom, L. J. (1982). Type A behavior and

upper respiratory infections. Journal of Human Stress,

go, 4-7.

Stout, J. K. (1984). Supervisors' structuring and

consideration behaviors and workers' job satisfaction,

stress and health problems. Rehabilitation Counseling

Bulletin, _8, 133-138.

Strube, M. J., Berry, J. M., & Moergen, S. (1985).

Relinquishment of control and the Type A behavior

pattern: The Role of performance evaluation. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, A9, 831-842.

Strube, M. J., & Werner, C. (1985). Relinquishment of

control and the Type A behavior pattern. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 688-701.

Terborg, J. R., Lee, T. W., Smith, F. J.., Davis, G. A., &

Turbin, M. S. (1982). Extension of the Schmidt and

Hunter validity generalization procedure to the

prediction of absenteeism behavior from knowledge of job

satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 67, 440-449.

Tjosvold, D., Andrews, I. R., & Jones, H. (1983).

Cooperative and competitive relationships between leaders

and subordinates. Human Relations, 36, 1111-1124.

41

Weidner, G., & Matthews, K. A. (1978). Reported physical

symptoms elicited by unpredictable events and the Type A

coronary-prone behavior pattern. Journal of Personalty

and Social Psychology, .36, 1213-1220.

Woods, P. J., & Burns, J. (1984). Type A behavior and

illness in general. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 71,

411-415.

VanEgeren, L. F., Sniderman, L. D., & Roggelin, M. S.

(1982). Competitive two-person interactions of Type A

and Type B individuals. Journal of Behavioral Medicine,

5, 55-66.