Journal of Counseling Psychology 1989, Vol. 36, No. 1,48-53 Copyright 1989 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-0167/89/S00.75 Dimensions of Leadership and Leadership Style Among Group Intervention Specialists Howard E. A.Tinsley, Judith A. Roth, and Suzanne H. Lease Southern Illinois University at Carbondale A questionnaire measuring 26 group leader characteristics investigated by Lieberman, Yalom, and Miles (1973) was administered to 204 experienced group leaders distributed geographically throughout the United States. A confirmatory factor analysis of the data revealed no support for the factor structure previously reported by Lieberman et al. Principal-components analysis with varimax rotation was performed, and an eight-factor solution was adopted. The factors pertained to group leader behavior or style (i.e., Cognitive Direction, Affective Direction, Behavioral Direction, and Nonverbal Exercises), leader personal qualities (i.e., Nurturant Attractiveness and Charismatic Expertness), and leader objectives (i.e., Group Functioning and Personal Func- tioning). Group interventions have become an integral part of the psychological services provided by counseling psychologists, taking on a wide variety of manifestations (i.e., encounter groups, consciousness-raising groups, personal-growth groups, structured groups, and therapy groups). Group interventions offer an efficient method of reaching a maximum number of clients and an effective method of dealing with client problems ranging from lack of assertiveness to some forms of psychotic behavior. As is often true in service-oriented areas of psy- chology, however, group practice has far outstripped the basic research on group interventions. Perhaps the most extensive research on group interventions is that of Lieberman, Yalom, and Miles (1973). They reasoned that the development of an empirical taxonomy of leadership methodologies would provide an organized framework within which to conduct research on group interventions. Lieberman et al. retained 16 group leaders to represent nine widely used group approaches. A tenth, leaderless approach was also in- cluded in which group participants listened to encounter tapes. Group members and observers rated the leaders on 27 leader variables, and Lieberman et al. (1973) factor analyzed these ratings. They reported four factors accounting for 74% of the common variance (see Table 1). No attempt to inde- pendently corroborate the findings of Lieberman et al. has been reported. The research on group interventions published in the last 14 years has virtually ignored the Lieberman et al. (1973) findings, and attempts to put those findings to practical use are almost nonexistent. Investigations have been published dealing with issues such as group structuring techniques (e.g., McGuire, Taylor, Broome, Blau, & Abbott, 1986), group outcome (e.g., Cooper & Stoltenberg, 1987; Kelly & Stone, 1987), type of group intervention (e.g., Graff, Whitehead, & LeCompte, 1986), client-intervention matching (e.g., Stop- pard & Henri, 1987), and the importance and adequacy of graduate training in group interventions (e.g., Birk & Brooks, Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Howard E. A. Tinsley, Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 62901. 1986). The slowly accumulating body of evidence appears segmented and lacking in direction, however, and little prog- ress has been made in integrating the results of these investi- gations into a cohesive body of findings that professionals can apply to their work in group settings. In this investigation we examine the issue of group leader- ship style by using a different methodology than that used by Lieberman et al. (1973). Instead of using information ob- tained from group members and observers, group leaders were asked to describe their group leadership style by com- pleting a self-report questionnaire. These data were analyzed by confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis. Method Subjects A mailing list was obtained for the 3,716 regular (i.e., nonstudent) members of the Association for Specialists in Group Work (ASGW), a division of the American Association for Counseling and Develop- ment. A random sample of 500 names were drawn from this list, and a questionnaire was sent to these members. Included in this mailing were the research questionnaire, a cover letter, and a stamped, return- addressed envelope. Usable responses were received from 203 (40.6%) group leaders distributed geographically throughout the United States. Only limited demographic information is available from the re- spondents. The distribution of respondents appears to be comparable with that of the ASGW membership in terms of gender (65% women) and highest degree earned (66% master's degree or equivalent; 21% doctorate). The respondents were more likely to live in the East (29%), Midwest (27%), or California (9%), than in the West (11% excluding California) or South (25%), so the sample may underrepre- sent slightly ASGW members living in the South. Demographic information available from the ASGW reveals that its membership is primarily White (94%), with only a few Black (3%) and Hispanic (2%) members. Most ASGW members work as counselors (69%), but some hold positions as counselor educators (14%), supervisors/con- sultants (8%), or administrators (7%). The modal ASGW member is employed in private practice (36%). Other employment settings in which a significant number of ASGW members work include colleges and universities (20%), agencies (18%), and primary and secondary education (14%). 48 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.