Introduction to Leadership Concepts Homework Questions

CHAPTER 4

BEHAVIORAL THEORIES

Behavioral theories (sometimes referred to as ''style" theories) are presented in this chapter. Pioneering work related to each of the three most commonly-identified styles of leadership are discussed: autocrati~ democrati~ and laissez-faire. Four leadership models are presented: the University of Michigan studies, Douglas McGregor's research, the Ohio State studies, and the Managerial Grid

CHAPTER OBJECTIVES After studying this chapter you should be able to:

✓ define the autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire styles of leadership, and discuss the pros and cons of each of these styles,

✓ describe the studies conducted at the University of Michigan and the results,

✓ understand the distinction between Theory X and Theory Y,

✓ describe the development of the Two-Factor Theory at Ohio State University, and

✓ discuss the Managerial Grid and identify and place the five anchor styles on the grid.

44 Behavioral Theories

INTRODUCTION

What do leaders actually do and how do

they do it?

When the search for a common trait or set of traits that could reliably predict leadership proved unproductive, the focus of researchers shifted to describing actions or behaviors that seemed essential to effective leadership. This shift in focus took some time, occurring over a span of many years. This new approach-the "behavioral" or "style" approach-became prominent after mid­ century.

The behavioral approach is characterized by its goal of cataloging leader behaviors: what do leaders actually do and how do they do it? Instead of searching for the traits or characteristics that define leadership, this approach seeks to identify those behaviors that will have a positive impact on the performance and satisfaction of the followers. A major objective of this research is to determine whether a particular style or pattern of behaviors can be shown to be superior to others in achieving group goals. An important practical implication of this approach is a shift away from the search for leaders who "have the right stuff" toward development of training programs to instruct leaders in the skills necessary for successful leadership.

EARLY BEHAVIORAL APPROACHES

The three styles lie on a

continuum, with autocratic and laissez-faire at the endpoints

and democratic in the middle.

In 1938, two researchers at the University of Iowa, Kurt Lewin and Ronald Lippitt published one of the earliest studies discussing different leadership styles. The following year, Lewin, Lippitt and Ralph White identified three basic styles of leadership: autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire. The autocratic style uses formal rules and regulations to control activities and relationships. All decisions are made by the leader, and a clear distinction is made between followers and the leader. The democratic style adopts a collaborative approach. Follower involvement and participation are encouraged in decision-making. Interactive relationships are encouraged, and rules, procedures and policies are minimized. Laissez-faire, a French word taken from laissez (let) and faire (do), suggests the principle of non-interference. Leaders using this style do not intervene unless asked or invited to do so. There is sometimes little interaction between leaders and followers, such that leaders may almost be non-participants.

These three styles are defined along a continuum, with autocratic and laissez-faire at the endpoints and democratic in the middle. J

Understanding Leadership 45

Autocratic Democratic Laissez-faire lt Style Style Style )f d Lewin, Lippitt and White's classic study of leadership styles

observed four comparable groups of ten-year-old boys working on e craft projects, such as making paper masks. Each group of boys !- was led by an adult who had been trained to use all three styles:

autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire. The boys met successively )f for three six-week periods with leaders using each style. The w results of the study can be summarized as follows: :s

■ Laissez-faire leaders were not as productive as democratic or ;e

autocratic leaders. Id co ■ Quality of work was poor under laissez-faire leadership.

■ Satisfaction was low under laissez-faire leadership. >e m ■ Productivity was similar between autocratic and democratic m groups while in the presence of the leader. rd ■ When the respective leaders were called away, productivity 11s dropped drastically in the autocratically-led group, but remained

steady in the democratically-led groups.

■ There was more aggressive and hostile behavior toward both leaders and group members in autocratically-led groups.

1rt ■ Followers in the autocratic groups exhibited greater levels of

es dependence and less individuality as compared to those in n, democratic groups. p:

■ There was greater commitment and cohesiveness amonges IS.

members of the democratic groups.

je Additional Findings

a Lewin, Lippitt and White reached additional conclusions with regardire to each of the three leadership styles. Leaders who adopt anire authoritarian style can expect:id.

) ), ■ high productivity, increased hostility, aggression, and discontent rle as well as decreased commitment, independence, and creativity is among followers.

ch ■ relative success with tasks requiring standard procedures and minimal commitment or initiative.

ith ■ relative success with routine, highly structured, or simple tasks. he

■ relative success when a leader is much more knowledgeable than his or her followers, when groups of followers are extremely large, or when there is insufficient time to engage in

The democratic style is best

suited for tasks that require

participation, involvement,

creativity, and commitment to

decisions.

46 Behavioral Theories

democratic decision-making. (Military leaders, for example, dare not take time while under enemy fire to discuss the pros and cons of advancing or retreating.)

A leader adopting the democratic style can expect:

■ relatively high productivity that contributes to increased satisfaction, commitment, and cohesiveness.

■ relative success with tasks that require participation, involvement, creativity, and commitment to decisions.

■ to encounter some difficulties related to time management and the complexities of group processes.

A leader adopting the laissez-faire style can expect:

■ to spend less time actually engaged in leadership.

■ decreased productivity and less satisfaction on the part of most followers.

■ less innovation and creativity from followers.

■ relative success and effectiveness with groups containing motivated and knowledgeable experts. (Such groups often do not require direct guidance and produce better results when left alone.)

University ofMichigan Studies Building on the work of Lewin, Lippett, and White, a massive

effort led by Rensis Likert was undertaken at the University of Michigan in the early 1960's. Evidence from more than 500 studies was assimilated examining the effectiveness of autocratic leadership compared to democratic leadership. The following variables were used to measure effectiveness:

■ costs ■ output per hour

■ worker satisfaction ■ grievance rate ■ turnover ■ scrap rate

■ absenteeism

Combining the results of his own research and the work of Lewin, Lippett, and White, Likert (1961) formulated four systems of interpersonal relations in large organizations:

System 1 ..................................... Exploitative autocratic

System 2 ..................................... Benevolent autocratic

System 3 ....... ................. ............. Consultative

System 4 ...... .. .................. ': .......... Democratic

Understanding Leadership 47

Democratic leaders will have better long-term results and

more satisfied workers.

The leadership behaviors of the System 1 ( exploitative autocratic) leaders emphasize control by using fear, threats and punishment. Communication is one-way, from the leader to the follower. Decision-making and goal-setting is strictly in the hands of leaders, who assume positions distant from and superior to workers in their groups. System 4 (democratic) leaders are very supportive and encourage communication. These leaders solicit ideas and suggestion, and use a participative style in decision-making, emphasizing team approaches. Systems 2 and 3 (benevolent autocratic and consultative) represent two forms of compromise between the two endpoints on the continuum.

Using this continuum to analyze the 500 studies mentioned above, Likert concluded that "positive associations generally have been found between measures of the organization's performance and whether they are closer to democratic systems 3 and 4 than to autocratic systems 1 and 2" (Bass, 1990).

Other researchers since Likert have employed similar, single continuum approaches, but used somewhat different labeling for the endpoints. Some of the more common terms are listed below.

Autocratic Production oriented

Job centered

Autocratic Task oriented

Democratic Employee oriented

Employee centered Participative

Socio-emotional oriented

In sum, researchers using this approach understand the endpoints of their continuums as opposing styles of behavior. Conclusions generally suggest that leaders choosing more democratic styles will achieve better long-term results and have more satisfied employees.

MCGREGOR THEORY X AND THEORY Y

f f

Designing work With a Theory y

view gives workers the freedom to

achieve at their highest potential.

In the 1950s, Douglas McGregor postulated two alternative views of human motivation, Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X analyzed motivation on the basis of the assumption that humans are by nature essentially lazy, stupid, apathetic, and irresponsible; that they disdain work and will therefore do whatever they can to avoid it. McGregor believed that leaders who view human nature in this way will logically seek to design control devices that closely monitor and control human behavior. The (assumed) lack of ambition and indifference to organizational goals would necessitate directive, autocratic leadership. Workers would have to be coerced,

48 Behavioral Theories

controlled, and threatened in order to achieve organizational objectives. Indeed, Theory X seems to have been the operative paradigm in the design and management of work processes prior to McGregor's writing. Work was typically reduced to its simplest form so that supervisors could easily direct and control workers. Supervisors would plan the work, assign the work, direct the work, and measure work performance. Workers merely needed to do what they were told.

Theory Y, as proposed by McGregor, is the antithesis to Theory X. It assumes that work is as natural as play, and views workers as individuals who are willing to work hard, able to exercise self-direction, and eager to accept responsibility when they share a commitment to organizational goals. This view suggests that managers should design work in such a way that workers are granted maximum autonomy, recognition, and responsibility. Work processes that are designed from the standpoint of Theory Y attempt to give employees the freedom to achieve at their highest potential.

TWO-FACTOR APPROACHES These one-dimensional (linear continuum) approaches were

quickly followed by two-factor theories. Two-factor approaches •~re the two question the assumption that the two dimensions at the endpoints

dimensions at of the continuum are mutually exclusive. Two-factor approaches the endpoints of suggest that a leader can use a production or task orientation to the continuum achieve goals while at the same time seeking to build a strong

mutually relationship with group members-a socio-emotional orientation. exclusive?" The Ohio State Leadership Studies and the Managerial Grid best

exemplify this concept.

Ohio State Leadership Studies An important leadership research program was undertaken

at Ohio State University concurrently with the Michigan studies. The principle researchers were J.K. Hemphill, Ralph Stogdill, and Edwin Fleishman. Their goal was to identify basic types of behaviors that were universally used by leaders. Beginning with 1,800 descriptions of leader behavior, the researchers used statistical processes to distill these down to 150 descriptions of good leader behavior. These were in turn used to develop a research instrument called the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ). The initial study administered the LBDQ to aircrews, who were asked to use it to score their commanders. Statistical analysis of this data indicated two dimensions of leadership behavior: "consideration"

<and "initiating structure".

Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid

Understanding Leadership 49

Consideration consisted of:

• building friendships

• mutual trust

• interpersonal respect

• warm working relationships

• two-way communication

• openness to followers' ideas and suggestions

Initiating structure referred to directing group activities through:

• planning

• scheduling

• encouraging st performance

andards of

• making task assignments

• emphasizing deadlines

■ organizing the work

Consideration and initiating structure were viewed as independent dimensions of leadership. A leader could be high on consideration and low on initiating structure, or vice versa. It was also possible to be high or low on both dimensions. If the research discovered a positive relationship between group productivity and leaders who were high in both consideration and initiating structure, the findings would suggest that leaders should be trained in the skills of both dimensions, rather than just one.

High 1,9

Low 1,1

A manager who is high on consideration but low on initiating structure

A manager who is moderate on both dimensions

5,5

Low

A manager who is high on both dimensions

9,9

A manager who is high on initiating structure but low on consider­ ation

50 Behavioral Theories

Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid Perhaps the best known of the two-factor approaches is

Robert Blake and Jane Mouton's "Leadership Grid" (1964). Their model was built upon the work of both the Michigan and Ohio State studies. Much of the popularity of this model is due to its commercial training emphasis. Managers are able to score themselves on two dimensions: concern for production and concern for people. Each axis is divided into equally distant points from one to nine. Although a leader might find his or her score anywhere on the grid, five styles have been identified that act as anchors. The five plotted styles are defined and presented in a graphic form below:

(1,1} Impoverished Management The impoverished leader demonstrated a low concern for tasks and a low concern for relationships. The leader with a (1,1) orientation does not actively attempt to influence others, but rather assigns responsibilities and leaves followers to complete tasks on their own.

(9,1} Authority-Obedience. This leader is very concerned with the completion of task assignments, but demonstrates little concern for personal relationships. The primary function of the (9,1) oriented leader is to plan, direct, and control behavior. Followers are viewed as human resources that facilitate the completion of tasks. Input from followers is not sought. A (9,1) oriented leader prefers to dominate decision-making.

(5,5} Organization Man Management This middle-of-the­ road leader is adequately concerned with production and people. In an attempt to involve followers, the (5,5) leader engages in compromise. Organization man leaders do not rock the boat - they push enough to achieve adequate productivity, but yield if they believe increasing the workload will strain interpersonal relationships. As a result, a (5,5) leader often achieves only mediocre results.

(1,9) Country Club Management The country club leader is more concerned with interpersonal relationships than with the completion of tasks. The (1,9) leader seeks to establish a supportive, friendly environment. Although country club leaders may want tasks to be completed effectively, they emphasize factors that contribute to the personal satisfaction and happiness of followers. The (1,9) leader sees his or her primary responsibility as providing a positive working environment.

(9,9} Team Management Team leadership involves a high concern for both production and people. The (9,9) leadership style is the ideal, for it emphasizes both successful execution of task

Understanding Leadership 51

assignments and supportive concern for individuals. The (9,9) leader nurtures followers so that they are able to achieve excellence in both personal and team goals. Under team leadership, both leaders and followers work together to achieve the highest level of productivity and personal accomplishment.

SUMMARY In spite of the intuitive attractiveness of a single style or set

of behaviors that result in both goal attainment and human concern, research findings are inconclusive. A particular set of ideal behavioral styles has been as elusive as a particular set of ideal traits. But considerable evidence does suggest that different situations call for differing styles of leadership.

REFERENCES Blake, R.R., and Mouton, J.S. (1964). The managerial grid.

Houston, TX: Gulf.

Coch, L., and French, J.R.P. (1948). "Overcoming resistance to change." Human Relations, 1, 512-532.

Fleishman, E.A. (1953a). "The measurement of leadership attitudes in industry." Journal ofApplied Psychology. 37, 153-158.

Fleishman, E.A. (1973). "Twenty years of consideration and structure." In E.A. Fleishman and J. G. Hunt (Eds.), Current developments in the study of leadership. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Hare, A.P. (1953). "Small group discussions with participatory and supervisory leadership." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 273-275.

Hemphill, J.K. (1950a). Leader behavior description. Columbus: Ohio State University, Personnel Research Board.

Lewin, K. and Lippitt, R. (1938). "An experimental approach to the study of autocracy and democracy: A preliminary note." Sociometry, 1, 292-300.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. and White, R.K. (1939). "Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates." Journal ofSocial Psychology, 10, 271-301.

Likert, R. (1961a). New patterns of management New York: McGraw-Hill.

52 Behavioral Theories

Likert, R. (1961b). "An emerging theory of organizations, leadership and management." In L. Petrullo & B.M. Bass (Eds.), Leadership and Interpersonal Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Shaw, M. E. (1955). "A comparison of two types of leadership in various communication nets." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50, 127-134.

Stogdill, R.M. (1963a). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire - Form XIL Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.

Wischmeier, R.R. (1955). "Group-centered and leader­ centered leadership: An experimental study." Speech Monographs, 22, 43-48.