Scores on the LBAII Leadership Style Profile are derived from a subject's responses to a 20item instrument. Each item included in the instrument describes an organizational leadership situation, and provides four possible scenarios for each situation from which subject's select one to indicate how they would likely respond to the leadership situation described. Scores are stated in percentages.

The LBAII Leadership Style Profile structure provides for a multiple assessment of a subject's leadership style. In the self evaluation facet of the leadership style assessment, a subject evaluates her or his own leadership style on the basis of self perceptions. The other evaluation facets of the leadership style assessment represent evaluations of a subject's leadership on the basis of (1) a subject's immediate organizational superior, (2) a subject's associate (or associates) on the same organizational hierarchical level as the subject, and (3) a subject's immediate organizational subordinate (or subordinates).

The multiple assessment structure of the LBAII Leadership Style Profile permits the answering of four questions in addition to assessing and describing a subject's leadership style. First, the subject is able to

The policy management simulation to which the subject's assessed leadership style will be applied is the First Year Strategy Plan for the "Right Sizing" program being implemented by Rockwell International, as this strategy applies to the Facilities Department of the company. The "Right Sizing" program incorporates a Total Quality Management (TQM) program. The First Year Strategy Plan includes (1) reorganization of the Facilities Department, (2) an educational training program, (3) a reduction of personnel strength, and (4) the implementation of TQM in the Facilities Department.

Zaleznik, A. "Managers and Leaders: Are They Different?" Harvard Business Review, SeptemberOctober 1977, 6778.

There were, however, much greater variations between other sets of scores, as the subject's leadership was perceived by organizational subordinates. The variance between the S3 and the S1 scores was almost 42 percent, while the variance between the S2 and S1 scores was 50 percent, and the variance between the S1 and S4 scores was 75 percent. Thus, in a broader context, the