What is a Leaderless Group Discussion? What is it measuring, and what evidence do we have for its reliability and validity?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The LGD is a disarmingly simple technique. A group of participants simply is asked to carry on a discussion about some topic for a period of time (Bass, 1954). Of course, face validity is enhanced if the discussion is about a job-related topic. No one is appointed leader. Raters do not participate in the discussion, but remain free to observe and rate the performance of each participant. For example, IBM used an LGD in which each participant is required to make a 5-minute oral presentation of a candidate for promotion and then subsequently defend his candidate in a group discussion with five other participants. All roles are well defined and structured. Seven characteristics are rated, each on a 5-point scale of effectiveness: aggressiveness, persuasiveness or selling ability, oral communications, self-confidence, resistance to stress, energy level, and interpersonal contact (Wollowick & McNamara, 1969).
Interrater reliabilities of the LGD generally are reasonable, averaging .83 (Bass, 1954; Tziner & Dolan, 1982). Test–retest reliabilities of .72 (median of seven studies; Bass, 1954) and .62 (Petty, 1974) have been reported. Reliabilities are likely to be enhanced, however, to the extent that LGD behaviors simply are described rather than evaluated in terms of presumed underlying personality characteristics (Bass, 1954; Flanagan, 1954b).
In terms of job performance, Bass (1954) reported a median correlation of .38 between LGD ratings and performance ratings of student leaders, shipyard foremen, administrative trainees, foreign-service administrators, civil-service administrators, and oil-refinery supervisors. In terms of training performance, Tziner and Dolan (1982) reported an LGD validity of .24 for female officer candidates; in terms of ratings of 5-year and career potential, Turnage and Muchinsky (1984) found LGD validities in the low .20s; and, in terms of changes in position level 3 years following the LGD, Wollowick and McNamara (1969) reported a predictive validity of .25. Finally, since peer ratings in the LGD correlate close to .90 or higher with observers’ ratings (Kaess, Witryol, & Nolan, 1961), it is possible to administer the LGD to a large group of candidates, divide them into small groups, and have them rate each other. Gleason (1957) used such a peer rating procedure with military trainees and found that reliability and validity held up as well as when independent observers were used.