Group Leadership and Conflict Summary

Before beginning this chapter, consider the following statements about leadership: Leaders are born, not made. An effective leader is always in control of the group process. A leader is a person who gets others to do the work. Leadership is a set of functions distributed throughout the group. The leader should know more than other group members about the topic of discussion. An authoritarian leader is better than one who allows the group to function without control. It is best for a group to have only one leader. A person who has been appointed leader is the leader. Leaders are servants. What do you think about these statements? Which ones do you agree with? Disagree with? If it has not happened already, be assured that one day you will find yourself in a leadership position—on a committee, in an organization, or perhaps in the military. In fact, whenever you participate in a decision-making group, your attitudes about leadership will affect your behavior, the behavior of others, and the effectiveness of the group. This chapter provides information about the nature of leadership in groups, which should help you become a more effective group participant, and offers some specific suggestions to help you become an effective leader. What Is Leadership? When you think about “leadership,” what comes to mind? A fearless commanding officer leading troops into battle? The president of the United States addressing the country on national television? Perhaps you think of the chairperson of a committee you are on. For our purposes, we define leadership as behavior or communication that influences, guides, directs, or controls a group. Communication scholar Dennis Gouran argues that leadership can be seen as a counteractive influence when groups get off-track. He says leadership constitutes the behavior required when groups experience difficulty establishing the conditions necessary for making the best possible choices.1 Traditionally, the study of leadership has centered on people who are successful in leadership positions. Researchers argued that by looking at successful leaders, they could identify attributes or individual traits that best predict good leadership ability. Identifying such traits would be tremendously valuable to those in business, government, or the military who are responsible for promoting others to positions of leadership. Trait Perspective: Characteristics of Effective Leaders Over the past several decades, researchers have conducted scores of trait studies indicating that leaders often have attributes such as intelligence, enthusiasm, dominance, self-confidence, social participation, and egalitarianism.2 More recent studies have found leading change to be related to creativity and social-emotional competency in leaders.3 Other researchers found physical traits to be related to leadership ability. Leaders seemed to be larger, more active and energetic, and better looking than other group members.4 Still other researchers found that leaders possess tact, cheerfulness, a sense of justice, discipline, versatility, and self-control. The trait perspective—a view of leadership as the personal attributes or qualities that leaders possess—seemed like a reasonable one when it was first proposed, but it actually yielded very little useful information. Traits useful in one situation, such as leading troops into battle, are not necessarily the traits required for other leadership positions, such as conducting a business meeting. For example, the trait of high dominance often found in leaders can actually be counterproductive in certain contexts. When there is instability in an organization’s leadership hierarchy, such leaders may use their power to advance their self-interest rather than the group’s goals.5 A further problem with the trait approach is that it does not identify which traits are important to becoming a leader and which are important to maintaining the position. These studies also fail to distinguish adequately between leaders and followers who possess the same traits, and they are not useful to group participants wishing to improve their leadership skills. Therefore, although the trait approach is of interest from a historical perspective, we will move on to consider other, more useful, approaches. Functional Perspective: Group Needs and Roles Rather than focusing on the characteristics of individual leaders, the functional perspective examines leadership as behaviors that may be performed by any group member to maximize group effectiveness. Dean Barnlund and Franklyn Haiman identify leadership behaviors as those that guide, influence, direct, or control others in a group.6 Identifying such behaviors is a fruitful approach for those interested in improving their leadership abilities. Although the trait approach might help identify the sort of person who should be appointed to a leadership position, the functional approach describes the specific communicative behaviors that help a group function more effectively. By understanding these behaviors, people can participate more productively in group discussions. According to advocates of the functional approach, the major leadership behaviors fall into two categories: (1) task leadership and (2) process leadership (also called group building or maintenance). Task-oriented behaviors aim specifically at accomplishing a group goal. Process-oriented behaviors help maintain a satisfactory interpersonal climate within a group. Both types of leadership are essential. Task Leadership When groups convene to solve problems, make decisions, plan activities, or determine policy, they are frequently hampered by group members’ tendency to get off-track. Even when they get down to business, group process may stray. Sometimes one person monopolizes the conversation while others remain silent. Sometimes groups just cannot seem to get started. A group leader has a responsibility to keep a group moving, but research in group process has shown that anyone can perform the behaviors that keep a group on track. Just because a person has the title “leader” does not necessarily mean that he or she is best equipped to do the job. If leadership is a set of functions that are often distributed, a group is still quite capable of getting its job done regardless of who is designated leader. If you are a member of a disorganized group, you can provide the leadership the group needs even though you are not the “leader.” Chapter 5 describes the diversity of roles in small groups. The following list summarizes a few task-leadership behaviors and the ways in which they help a group move toward its goal: Initiating: Task-oriented group discussions need to generate ideas. Sometimes ideas are related to procedural matters; at other times a group needs to generate ideas to solve problems. If, for example, you just read Chapter 10 on problem solving and can see that your group has not adequately defined its problem before suggesting solutions, you might say, “Listen. I think we’re all proposing solutions before we’ve really agreed on the nature of the problem. Let’s take a few minutes and talk some more about the problem so that we know we’re all discussing the same thing.” By proposing a change in the group’s deliberations, you initiate a procedural change—in this case, one that will probably benefit the group. To “initiate” means to “begin.” If you say, “Let’s get this meeting under way,” you have begun a change (assuming the group follows your suggestion). If, later in the meeting, you say, “Let’s consider an alternative plan” or “Let’s generate some more ideas before evaluating what we have here,” you will again probably alter the course of the group’s action. Without someone who initiates discussion, a group has no direction. The ability to initiate is an important group behavior, one that anyone can contribute. In an operating room, the role of each member of the surgical team is defined by the tasks required. What type of leader is best suited to lead such a team? Coordinating: Different people bring different expectations, beliefs, attitudes, values, and experiences to a group. The contributions of each member are unique, yet all should be directed toward a common group goal. Given the diversity in small groups, coordinating is often an important leadership function. Communicative behavior that helps a group explore the contributions of all members is valuable. If, for example, you see a connection between the ideas that two members bring to the group, you should point it out to help focus the group. Coordinating members’ efforts can help them see the “groupness” of their activities and reduce their uncertainty about the group, its problem, and its solutions. Summarizing: Groups can become long-winded. Often, people who are in the middle of a discussion cannot tell just where the discussion began and where it is going. It does not take many tangential remarks to get the group off-track. Even when the group is on track, it is sometimes useful to stop and assess its progress. Summarizing reduces group uncertainty by showing how far the discussion has progressed and what it still needs to accomplish. By understanding when a group needs a summary—and then providing it—you can help move the group toward its goal. Even if the group does not accept your summary, you will still reveal discrepancies among group members’ perceptions, thus opening the door to more clarification and less uncertainty. Elaborating: Sometimes good ideas are ignored until they are elaborated on enough to be visualized. Suppose you attend a meeting of your fraternity or sorority, which is trying to determine ways of enlarging next year’s pledge class. Someone in the group suggests that redecorating the recreation room might help. Several things might happen in the discussion: (1) Members might begin to evaluate the idea, some being in favor and some not; (2) another idea might be suggested and recorded; or (3) you (or someone else) might elaborate on the idea by describing how the room might look with new carpeting, a pool table, soft lighting, and a new sofa. Whereas redecoration might have fallen flat by itself, your elaboration gives it a fighting chance. Initiating, coordinating, summarizing, and elaborating are types of communicative behaviors. Although these are some of the more important types of contributions you can make, the list is by no means complete. Task leadership is any behavior that influences group process and helps accomplish the group’s task. Making suggestions, offering new ideas, giving information or opinions, asking for more information, and making procedural observations or recommendations are all task-oriented leadership behaviors that can contribute to a group’s effort. The functional approach reveals that leadership skill is associated with the ability to analyze a group’s process and to choose appropriate behaviors to further that process. Process Leadership For a group to function effectively, it needs to concern itself with itself. Groups are composed of people, and people have needs. (In fact, the family is a small group specifically adapted to meeting individual needs.) People do not leave their needs at home when they come to a meeting; they bring them along. Effective group communication must be addressed to both the external task of the group and the needs of its members. Failing to maintain a satisfying group climate can lead to a breakdown in a group’s performance. In this respect, small groups resemble automobiles. Cars are great for getting you where you want to go, but they require regular tuning and maintenance in order to run reliably and efficiently. In fact, if an owner does not maintain a car, eventually it will break down. So it is with groups: They, too, need tuning and maintenance. Leadership research consistently indicates that groups have both task and process needs. The process dimension is often called “group building and maintenance.” Process leadership behaviors maintain interpersonal relations in a group and facilitate a climate satisfying to members and conducive to accomplishing the group’s task. Group process leaders are really communication facilitators. Chapter 6 discusses group climate from the perspective of individual and interpersonal needs. The following list presents some specific process-leadership behaviors that enhance climate: Releasing tension: Think of times you have studied for exams. You cram more and more information into your head until you reach a point where it all seems futile. Everything runs together; ideas blur. You know it’s time for a break. After a cup of coffee or an energy drink and some relaxing conversation, you return to your books with renewed energy. Sometimes the most effective leadership you can provide for a group is suggesting a coffee break. When a group is tired, when its task is difficult, when the hour is late, when tension and stress are high, a group needs relief. A joke, a bit of humor, a break, or even a motion to adjourn can often provide just what a group needs—tension release. An occasional break or a good laugh can renew a group’s energy and improve member satisfaction. Gatekeeping: As we noted in Chapter 1, an advantage of working in small groups is that several heads are better than one. The very diversity that makes group communication so complex also gives it strength. A group possesses more experience and intelligence than does any individual, but experience and individual insight are useful to a group only if they are shared. Some people like to talk more than others, and in some groups, two or three people monopolize the conversation while others remain relatively silent. This fairly common occurrence poses a problem for a group in two ways: First, quiet members are just as likely as more vocal group members to possess useful information and ideas, and their ideas may never surface unless they say something. Second, people who talk more tend to be more satisfied with a group. Thus, members who do not talk much can have a negative effect on a group in both the task and process dimensions. Gatekeeping is aimed at coordinating discussion so that members can air their views. It may take the form of eliciting input (“Harvey, you must have given this a lot of thought. What are your views of the problem?”) or even of limiting the contributions of more verbal group members (“Can we perhaps limit our comments to two or three minutes so that we can get everyone’s ideas before we have to adjourn?”). Gatekeeping is an important leadership function because it ensures more input along the task dimension and higher member satisfaction along the process dimension. Encouraging: People like praise. They feel good when someone recognizes them for their contributions. Offering encouragement is a leadership behavior aimed at increasing the self-esteem of group members and raising their hopes, confidence, and aspirations. Improving the morale of a group can increase cohesiveness, member satisfaction, and productivity. Mediating: Conflict is a normal, healthy part of group interaction. However, mismanaged conflict can lead to hurt feelings, physical or mental withdrawal from a group, reduced cohesiveness, and general disruption. Mediating is aimed at resolving conflict between group members and releasing any tension associated with the conflict. Whenever conflict becomes person-oriented rather than issue-oriented, it is a particularly appropriate time for mediation. Wanda: I think that the plan I’m proposing has considerable merit and meets our needs. Harold: That’s ridiculous. It’ll never work. Wanda: Get off my case! I don’t see you proposing any better solutions. Coaching is an activity that requires both task and process leadership skills. What might happen if this coach had poor leadership skills? This potentially volatile situation could easily disrupt the group. You often have to work in groups with people you do not especially like. Obviously, Harold and Wanda do not get along well, but groups can function effectively in spite of personality clashes. They need to focus discussion on issues rather than on personalities. At times, interpersonal difficulties become so severe that they cannot be resolved by simply focusing on a group’s task. Such difficulties can be a serious encumbrance to a group and need to be dealt with either within or outside the group; ignoring problems will not make them go away. The preceding list of behaviors that contribute to a group’s process or maintenance needs is not complete. More complete lists appear in Chapter 5. The behaviors just described are some of those that are more essential to task and process leadership. They are included here to emphasize their importance and to help you identify your own leadership behavior in groups. Both task and process leadership are essential to the success of a small group. If a group does not make progress on its task, members will probably feel frustrated and unsatisfied. In addition, if a group does not maintain a comfortable environment, members will tend to focus their attention and energy on their own dissatisfaction with the group rather than on their assigned task. Situational Perspective: Adapting Style to Context Thus far we have discussed the trait and functional approaches to leadership study and explored some task and process leadership roles. The situational perspective to group leadership accommodates all these factors—leadership behaviors, task needs, and process needs—but also takes into account leadership style and situation. Leadership Style Your beliefs and attitudes about leadership will affect your behavior in small groups. Leadership style is a relatively consistent pattern of behavior reflecting a leader’s beliefs and attitudes. Although no two people act as leaders in precisely the same way, people do lead with three basic styles: (1) authoritarian (or autocratic), (2) democratic, and (3) laissez-faire. Authoritarian leaders assume positions of intellectual and behavioral superiority in groups. They make the decisions, give the orders, and generally control all activities. Democratic leaders have more faith in the group than authoritarian leaders do and consequently try to involve members in making decisions. Laissez-faire leaders see themselves as no better or no worse than other group members. They assume the group will direct itself. Laissez-faire leaders avoid dominating groups. In one of the earliest studies of the effects of leadership style, researchers compared groups of school children led by graduate students who had been specifically trained in one of the three leadership styles. The researchers defined the styles as shown on page 226 in Table 9.1.7 Here is a brief summary of the results of the study: 1. Groups with democratic leaders generally were better satisfied and functioned in a more orderly and positive way. 2. Groups with authoritarian leaders were more aggressive or more apathetic (depending on the group). 3. Members of democratic groups were better satisfied than members of laissez-faire groups; a majority of group members preferred democratic to authoritarian leadership, although some members were better satisfied in authoritarian groups. 4. Authoritarian groups spent more time engaged in productive work, but only when the leader was present. It is tempting to conclude that humanistic, participatory, democratic leadership will invariably lead to greater satisfaction and higher productivity. Unfortunately, the evidence does not warrant such a generalization. Several studies have shown that no single leadership style is effective in all situations. What works at General Motors may not work in a family business. An effective student body president may be a poor camp counselor. The expectations of one group differ from those of other groups.8 Recent research on the effectiveness of different leadership styles has suggested that effective leadership is contingent on a variety of interrelated factors such as culture, time constraints, group compatibility, and the nature of a group’s task. Although the functional approach reveals the importance of fulfilling various leadership roles in a group, it does not explain which roles are most appropriate in which situation. It is clear that you need to consider the setting in which leadership behavior occurs. © Charles Barsotti/Conde Nast Publications/www.cartoonbank.com The situational approach views leadership as an interaction between style and various situational factors. David Korten proposes that under certain conditions groups are pressured to have centralized, authoritarian leadership but that as these conditions change, groups often develop a more democratic, participative form of leadership. TABLE 9.1 Leader Behavior in Three “Social Climates” Authoritarian Democratic Laissez-Faire Leader makes all determination of policy. Leader encourages and directs, but all policies are a matter of group discussion and decision. Leader participates at a minimum level; complete freedom for group or individual decisions. Leader dictates techniques and activity steps one at a time, so group members are always largely uncertain of future steps. Leader discusses activity steps with group before group begins work; general steps to group goal are sketched, and when technical advice is needed, leader suggests alternative procedures. Leader supplies various materials, making it clear he or she will supply information when asked, but taking no other part in discussion. Leader usually dictates work task and work companion for each member. Leader leaves division of tasks to group; members are free to work with anyone. Leader does not participate in task or work companion assignments. Leader tends to be personal in praise and criticism of each member’s work; remains aloof from active group participation except when demonstrating. Leader tends to be objective or “fact-minded” in praise and criticism and tries to be a regular group member in spirit without doing too much of the work. Leader makes only infrequent, spontaneous comments on member activities unless questioned; makes no attempt to appraise or regulate course of events. Korten says that groups with highly structured goals and high stress move toward authoritarian leadership. Think of times when you were in a group with clear goals but with members uncertain of how to achieve them. Remember when a group felt stress because of an impending deadline or a group grade. At such times, group members will gladly follow any leader who can give direction and show them the means to their goal. When the situation changes—that is, when the group feels less uncertain, has less stress, and has less structured goals—it has less of a need for authoritarian leadership and instead needs more participative, democratic leadership. Contemporary studies continue to support this relationship: under conditions of relative certainty, groups show a pro-democratic attitude.9 As stress and goal structure increase, the tendency of a group to accept authoritarian leadership increases. As stress and goal structure decrease, groups need more democratic—or even laissez-faire—leadership. When the room is on fire, we want someone who will take charge and lead us to safety. But when the task is to discuss the book of the month, such take-charge leadership seems inappropriate. Korten’s model is applicable even on an international scale. Consider the differences between leadership and goal structure in the developing world and in the United States. Citizens of developing countries seek new ways of life that they as yet have not attained; their goals are structured, concrete, and operational. By contrast, Americans focus more on maintaining processes than on changing them. The relationship of these goals to leadership styles in the two regions is obvious. Hersey’s Situational Leadership Model Like other situational leadership theories, Paul Hersey’s model uses various combinations of task- and relationship-oriented leadership behavior to describe leadership style as it relates to different situations.10 In this case, the readiness of the group is the situational variable. The two axes of Hersey’s model represent the now-familiar task and relationship (process) dimensions of leadership behavior. Leaders who strongly emphasize performance of the group task and pay little attention to relationship issues—that is, his or her orientation is high task and low relationship—are described as having a telling style. Those whose style reflects a high task and high relationship approach are identified as having a selling leadership style. Thus, while both telling and selling styles are directive, leaders following a selling style are concerned that the group accept and internalize the orders given. Leaders who focus less on task performance, meanwhile, may be divided into those who follow a participating style (low task performance emphasis; high relationship emphasis) and a delegating style (low task performance emphasis; low relationship emphasis). In other words, leaders with a participating style are driven primarily by concern for relationships and a need for all group members to share in decision making. A leader with a delegating style takes a hands-off attitude and allows the group to direct itself. According to Hersey, these four leadership styles are more or less appropriate depending on a group’s readiness: the amount of willingness and ability the follower or group demonstrates while performing a specific task. When you view readiness in combination with the four leadership styles identified by the model, it becomes clear that a “telling” style is most appropriate with groups that are just starting out, perhaps in their orientation stage of development. As groups mature, effective leadership allows for more autonomy and participating and delegating styles are more effective. “Just as parents should relinquish control as a function of the increasing maturity of their children, so too should leaders share more decision-making power as their subordinates acquire greater experience with and commitment to their tasks.”11 Communication scholar Sarah Trenholm offers the following example of how Hersey’s model might apply to a classroom: Consider teaching style as a form of leadership. Hersey would suggest that at the beginning of a course of study, with inexperienced students, a highly directive telling style is best. The teacher who tells a freshman class, “You decide what and how you want to learn. It’s entirely up to you,” is using a delegating style, which will fail because at this point students are not yet ready to take full responsibility for their own learning. As the course progresses, however, and as the students feel more comfortable with the course and each other, the teacher might use selling and participating styles and perhaps end up with a delegating approach. More mature students may be ready for autonomy and may even resent being told what to do.12 Hersey’s model is widely used in training managers and executives, probably because it shows how managers can change styles according to their subordinates’ readiness level. A delegating style can be used with one employee or group, and a telling style with another.13 Some Observations on the Situational Approach to Leadership At first glance, the situational approach seems to cover all bases. It looks at the style of leadership, the group’s task needs and process needs, and situational variables that influence groups. Unfortunately, most research using this approach has focused on the behavior of leaders rather than on leadership as a process of realizing group goals.14 Thus, while the situational approach is useful, it is, perhaps, not as helpful to the student of small-group communication as is the functional approach. Achieving a group goal involves everyone in the group, not just the leader. Shared Leadership in Teams A relatively new area of study is shared leadership. Research has shown that when group or team members share leadership, their groups experience less conflict, greater consensus, and higher trust and cohesion than in groups without shared leadership.15 Leadership in teams can be focused or distributed. Focused leadership resides in a single individual, identified as the leader. Distributed leadership occurs when two or more individuals within a team share leadership responsibilities. Focused and distributed leadership can be considered endpoints on a continuum. Researchers Jay Carson, Paul Tesluk, and Jennifer Marrone define shared leadership as “an emergent team property that results from the distribution of leadership influence across multiple team members.”16 They note that shared leadership originates when multiple group members exert influence over the team and other group members, resulting in a leadership network that shapes team and individual activities and outcomes. Their research supports the hypothesis that the degree of shared leadership in a team is positively related to team performance. Other research has identified traits of leaders and team members as situational variables to take into account. The charisma of a leader and the self-efficacy (degree to which it can function on its own) are related to leadership style. A coaching (democratic) style of leadership was more effective than the directive (autocratic) approach when the team leader was highly charismatic. The directive approach was more effective when team members lacked self-efficacy.17 REVIEW: PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP Trait approach: Attempts to identify characteristics common to successful leaders Functional approach: Views leadership as a set of behaviors that may be enacted by any group member Situational approach: Relates effective leadership to interaction between leadership style and the group situation Transformational Leadership A relatively new theory of leadership, which describes leadership in organizations, is transformational leadership. Transformational leaders “strive to change, elevate, and unify the goals of followers as well as inspire them to pursue challenging and shared objectives.”18 As described in management and public administration literature, transformational leadership has four defining characteristics, called the Four I’s: (1) idealized leadership, (2) inspirational motivation, (3) intellectual stimulation, and (4) individual consideration. Idealized leadership seeks to create within followers an inspiring vision of how things can be. Inspirational motivation is the communicative ability of the leader to stir followers to action. Intellectual stimulation is the leader’s ability to engage followers in challenging the status quo and assumptions about processes. Individual consideration is the leader’s ability to be supportive and to nurture each individual’s positive attributes, qualities, and strengths in support of the greater good. VIRTUAL GROUPS Electronic media are increasingly becoming a part of the situational context in which group and team communication takes place. As a group or team leader, you may have considerable influence over how much group interaction takes place face to face (FTF) or through electronic media. But which modes or combination of modes will be most effective? (How does leadership style interact with different types of communication media?) Scholars Laura Hambley, Thomas O’Neill, and Theresa Kline22 tested different leadership styles against different media and outcomes. They compared transactional and transformational leadership styles in three communication media: face to face, videoconference, and text-based chat teams. Transactional leadership was defined as a process of exchange in which leaders tended to gain follower compliance through offering rewards or threatening punishment. Transformational leadership was defined, much as it is in this chapter, as leadership aimed at broadening follower interests, motivating, and gaining commitment to goals and mission. Their research found the following: Mean constructive (supportive) interaction scores were higher in FTF than in videoconference and chat teams. Teams working in richer (e.g., FTF) communication media did not achieve higher task performance than those working in less-rich media. Cohesiveness scores were higher in FTF and videoconference than in chat teams. While many studies have found that teams led by transformational leaders outperform those led by transactional leaders, there is also evidence that the reward aspects of trans-actional leadership can be highly effective.23 Both transactional and transformation leadership are related to performance in face-to-face teams, with the overall edge going to transformational leadership. Research on leadership styles in virtual teams is relatively scarce, even though leadership style and technology are likely to interact in many ways. For the time being, the best advice on leadership style in virtual teams is to adopt a style that best fits your personality and skill set and the needs of the group. This research did provide additional evidence that communication media have important effects on team interaction and cohesiveness. The best advice, again, is that media with more richness (FTF, videoconferencing) are generally more effective than less-rich media (such as text-based chat teams). Contrasted with transactional leaders, who clarify expectations and reward followers or employees for meeting them, transformational leaders motivate others to move beyond self-interest and work for the greater collective good.19 Transformational leaders have a sense of vision and purpose. Management consultant and author Peter Senge proposes three critical skills of transformational leadership: (1) building shared vision, (2) surfacing and challenging mental models, and (3) engaging in systems thinking.20 Building shared vision is similar to establishing mutuality of concern (see Chapter 3). It involves encouraging individuals to express their visions of group or organizational goals while encouraging the development of a common, positive view. Surfacing and challenging mental models is a process of identifying and challenging assumptions without creating defensiveness—a daunting task requiring supportive communication skills (see Chapter 6). Systems thinking is a process we have argued for throughout this book. Understanding groups and organizations and the great complexity that characterizes them requires that leaders look beyond day-to-day operations to find underlying themes, forces of change, and interrelationships.21 Leadership that empowers and motivates others stimulates knowledge sharing, team efficacy, and greater performance.22 In the classic film The Empire Strikes Back, Luke Skywalker watches as Yoda levitates his spaceship out of the swamp. Luke: I don’t believe it! Yoda: That is why you fail. Often, the secret to reaching a goal (or vision) lies in the belief that it can be reached. Belief in the vision becomes more powerful than the followers’ sense of lack, limitation, and doubt. This belief-system shift empowers followers to reach a higher level of commitment and achievement. Its effect may even be so powerful as to convert followers into leaders and leaders into moral agents.23 Transformational leadership is not so much a set of behaviors that one can observe or emulate as it is a philosophy of leadership and change.24 Small groups and teams everywhere operate within the cultures of larger organizations and influenced by those cultures. In innovative transformational organizational cultures, we are likely to see assumptions that people can be trusted, that everyone has a contribution to make, and that complex problems should be handled at the lowest possible level. In a transformational culture, norms are flexible enough to adapt to changing external environments. Superiors serve as mentors, coaches, role models, and leaders.25 Transformational leadership has the greatest capacity to motivate group members to debate ideas constructively.26 There is some evidence that the most effective leaders in virtual teams are those who increase their transformational leadership. One study found that transformational leadership has a stronger effect in teams that use only computer-mediated communication.27 CASE STUDY: Adjusting Leadership Style to Situation Having been offered some very attractive extra retirement benefits by top management, Arthur agreed to take early retirement at age 62. Once an ambitious young junior executive for the company, Arthur had, in recent years, taken a rather relaxed, anything-goes attitude as director of his division. As a result, his team showed the lowest productivity record in the company, and the employees under his supervision did not receive attractive salary increments and other rewards from top management. Morale was very low, and the employees were discontented. Hoping to rejuvenate the group, management replaced Arthur with an extremely bright, dynamic, and aggressive young manager named Marilyn. Marilyn’s instructions were: “Get your team’s productivity up by 20 percent over the next 12 months, or we’ll fire the whole group and start from scratch, with a new manager and new employees.” Marilyn began by studying the records of employees in her group to determine the strengths and weaknesses of each. She then created goals and objectives for each employee and made assignments accordingly. She set a rigid timetable for each employee and made all employees directly accountable to her. Employee response was overwhelmingly positive. Out of chaos came order. Each person knew what was expected and had tangible goals to achieve. Employees felt united behind their new leader as they all strove to achieve their objective of a one-year, 20 percent increase in productivity. At the end of the year, productivity was up not 20 percent but 35 percent! Management was thrilled and awarded Marilyn a large raise and the company’s certificate of achievement. All of her team members received a handsome bonus. Feeling that she had a viable formula for success, Marilyn moved into the second year as she had into the first—setting goals for each employee, holding them accountable, and so forth. However, things went less smoothly the second year. Employees who had been quick to respond the first year were less responsive. Although the work Marilyn assigned was usually completed on time, its quality declined. Employees had a morale problem: Those who had once looked up to Marilyn as “Boss” were now sarcastically calling her “Queen Bee” and reminiscing about “the good old days” when Arthur was their manager. Marilyn’s behavior as a manager had not changed, yet her leadership was no longer effective. Something needed to be done, but what? Questions for Analysis 1. What are the important elements to consider when diagnosing Marilyn’s leadership problem? How would you describe her leadership style? 2. What situational variables changed from the first to the second year of Marilyn’s leadership? 3. Why was Marilyn’s leadership successful in the first year but not in the second? 4. How did team goals change from the first to the second year? How about stress levels? Were they the same, or did they change? 5. What would you recommend to Marilyn to help her be more successful? First, use David Korten’s model and language to make your recommendations. Then, make recommendations based on the Hersey and Blanchard model. Emergent Leadership in Small Groups The Minnesota Studies A fascinating series of leadership studies begun at the University of Minnesota (called the Minnesota Studies) sought the answer to the question “Who is most likely to emerge as the perceived leader of a leaderless discussion group?” Led by Professor Ernest Bormann, the Minnesota Studies formed and observed “test-tube groups” that engaged in leaderless group discussions. Most people think of a leader as someone who takes charge and organizes a discussion. Predictably, group members often perceive those who actively participate in the group and who direct communication toward procedural matters as leaders. Although studies show a clear correlation between perceived leadership and talkativeness, especially task-oriented talkativeness,28 those who talk most are not the only ones who become leaders in leaderless groups. In fact, most groups do not select leaders at all. The Minnesota Studies show that leaders emerge through a “method of residues,” whereby group members are rejected for the role of leader until only one remains. The first members to be eliminated from consideration are the quiet ones who do not actively participate in the early stages of a group’s discussion. The next to go are the talkative but overaggressive or dogmatic group members who are perceived to be too inflexible for leadership positions. COLLABORATING ETHICALLY: What Would You Do? Some research indicates that the behavior of leaders or superiors in an organization is among the strongest influences on ethical behavior, playing a larger role than the actions of peers or, in some cases, people’s individual ethical frameworks.29 When you’re a leader, you’re a role model. As such, your power may go far beyond your direct, immediate influence on your group’s work. Often, group and team leaders are privy to information that other group members do not have. Organizations often communicate with groups only through their designated leaders. Thus, the leader is a gatekeeper for the group, a channel through whom information passes from superiors to the group and from the group back to those above. Suppose that you are the leader of a team working on a project nearing completion. You are relieved because the holidays are approaching rapidly, your group has been working night and day, and the project must be completed so that the exhausted group members can take some time off with their families. You schedule the final meeting for tomorrow, when the team will put the finishing touches on the project and you will tell them they can have some time off. Your boss has just brought you a report from another team, which he believes may have bearing on your project. You review the report, and while you understand your boss’s view, you don’t believe the other team’s data are really relevant to your project. If you forward the report to your group, they will have to take time to process it, which will cut into their much-needed vacation time. What would you do? After this initial phase of elimination, a group enters a second phase, in which roughly half the group members remain in contention for the leadership role. This phase moves much more slowly than the first phase, and it is a good deal more painful and frustrating. One by one, the group rejects contenders for the leadership role until only one or two remain. Often, members reject would-be leaders because their style is perceived as disturbing. In the Minnesota Studies’ classroom discussion groups, members often rejected an authoritarian style on the grounds that the person was “too bossy” or “dictatorial.” (Of course, as the situational perspective would suggest, the authoritarian style might be inappropriate in a classroom discussion group but highly appropriate in other situations, especially those that involve extreme stress.) In another study, Deborah Baker found that specific communication behaviors increase the likelihood of rejection as leader.30 Group members who seem unable to contribute to either the group’s tasks or the organization because they are quiet, vague, tentative, self-effacing, or always asking others for direction are usually rejected. In this second phase of role emergence, the Minnesota Studies also found that, to some extent, groups with two or more men rejected female contenders for the leadership role. Groups containing only one man often selected a female leader and isolated the man—a pattern that may be changing. Task-motivated group members often rejected a contender who was perceived as too process oriented—that is, too concerned about everyone’s feelings and moods to be decisive. Likewise, process-oriented members tended to reject those they saw as too concerned with the task. According to Bormann, In the final analysis, groups accepted the contender who provided the optimum blend of task efficiency and personal consideration. The leader who emerged was the one that others thought would be of most value to the entire group and whose orders and directions they trusted and could follow.31 The Minnesota Studies give fascinating insight into the process through which group leaders emerge. Although this information does not tell you how to behave in order to rise to leadership positions, it does alert you to the process through which leadership emerges. These studies also highlight the complexity of small groups and explain, to an extent, why a person who assumes a leadership role in one group may not do so in another and why a person who is perceived to be a leader in two groups may not assume the same role in each. Research is adding to our knowledge of emergent leadership in groups. Emergent leaders typically display more effective listening skills and may be more extroverted.32 Individual task ability contributes to emergent leadership, as does commitment to the group’s assigned goals.33 Group goals are often strongly influenced by the emergent leader’s personal goals for the group.34 Under conditions of high uncertainty, a group will turn to emergent leaders who are seen as prototypical—those who embody the group’s social identity.35 Verbal aggressiveness is not associated with leadership emergence.36 An individual’s self-view as a leader affects the number of leadership nominations an individual receives and the number of leadership nominations an individual receives affects an individual’s self-view as leader over time.37 Leadership and Gender A review of research literature on the subject of gender and leadership reveals that the times, indeed, are changing.38 Research in the 1960s and 1970s found that women were reluctant to assume leadership roles.39 Group members perceived males as more independent, rational, confident, and influential than females and viewed males as leaders more often than females.40 In 1979, however, one team of researchers noted that females were more receptive to ideas and to fostering interpersonal relations, showing concern, and being attentive to others than males. Males in the same study in actual organizational settings were more dominant than females and quicker to challenge others and to control the course of conversation. The researchers noted that female leadership styles were more compatible with human-resource theories of how managers should behave.41 PUTTING PRINCIPLES INTO PRACTICE: Servant Leadership One of the most popular models of leadership today with significant relations to transformational leadership42 is servant leadership, a concept developed by Robert K. Greenleaf in 1970.43 The servant-leader is servant first. . . .It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions. For such it will be a later choice to serve—after leadership is established. The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature. . . . The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served.44 Servant-leaders are thought to be effective because their group members or followers are so well cared for by the leader that they can reach their full potential as team members and thus perform at their best. It is the opposite of authoritarian, domineering leadership. This view asks leaders to think hard about how best to nurture, respect, value, and motivate their followers, employees, or team members. Skills and Capacities of the Servant Leader In his book about Greenleaf’s work, Don M. Frick notes several characteristics of servant leaders.45 Note that each of these characteristics has been discussed earlier in this book (see Chapters 5 and 8) as components of effective group communication. Listening, he says, is the most important skill; servant leaders begin by being other-oriented, always responding to problems by listening first. Servant leaders use their power ethically; persuasion is always preferred over manipulation or coercion. Servant leaders seek consensus, when all group members support and are committed to a decision. While servant leaders may not always agree with others, they always approach others with acceptance and empathy. And, finally, servant leaders nurture community, understanding our interconnected-ness with the broader communities in which we live. One trait of the servant leader is selflessness, the willingness to do what is right even at the risk of one’s personal well-being or status. At its highest level, this is real leadership, like that of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who risked—and indeed gave—his life in order to stand up for what he believed in. In 1981, research reported that the influence of gender on the emergence of leadership was most evident early in the process and dissipated over time.46 By the late 1980s, some studies were reporting no difference in the way males and females are perceived in leadership roles.47 Also in the 1980s, there was a substantial body of research distinguishing psychological gender (introduced in Chapter 5) from biological gender. This research supported the argument that the most effective leader was that androgynous individual who could draw from a repertoire of both traditionally male and traditionally female behaviors.48 Research in the 1990s continued to support this view.49 Contemporary researchers Susan Shimanoff and Mercilee Jenkins have conducted extensive reviews of the research literature on gender and group leadership and have drawn several conclusions. In problem-solving groups, both male and female leaders concentrate on task behaviors, but female leaders are slightly more responsive to the group’s social-emotional needs. Males tend to talk more, which can increase their power, but women are equally effective in using evidence and making procedural suggestions, which are two critical leadership behaviors. Generally, men and women lead equally well. However, there is some evidence that because of sex role biases, female leaders may need to perform better than their male counterparts to be considered as good as men.50 Men and women appear to be equally suited to positions of leadership, yet men are still more likely to rise to positions of power. Shimanoff and Jenkins have offered the following suggestions for group members who wish to lower gender barriers and maximize effective leadership: Acknowledge and challenge sex-role biases; affirm egalitarian attitudes and remind group members of their importance. Celebrate the “traditional” strengths of women, but don’t assume that women alone have these strengths. Increase the visibility and support of female role models. Designate leaders only after interacting, if at all. Listen attentively; support all members and treat them with respect. Learn from diverse groups and individuals.51 Even as women increasingly take their natural and proportional positions of leadership, there still is evidence of gender bias. One study found that subordinates’ evaluations of group leaders were significantly less positive for female leaders with male subordinates than for female leaders with female subordinates. Male and female subordinates of male leaders rated their performance equally.52 We conclude this chapter as it began, with a quotation, this time from Lao Tsu, who wrote these words 2,500 years ago. They remain as true today as ever: The wicked leader is he whom the people despise, The good leader is he whom the people revere. The great leader is he of whom the people say, “We did it ourselves.” STUDY GUIDE: REVIEW, APPLY, AND ASSESS GROUP COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES WHAT IS LEADERSHIP? Objective 1 Define leadership. Group Communication Principles Leadership is behavior or communication that influences, guides, directs, or controls a group. The most effective leadership behavior is one that best meets the needs of the group. Key Term Leadership 219 TRAIT PERSPECTIVE: CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE LEADERS Objective 2 Discuss the trait perspective on leadership. Group Communication Principles The trait perspective views leadership as a set of personal attributes–traits–that leaders possess. Its weakness is that traits useful in one situation may not be as helpful in another type of circumstance. Key Term Trait perspective 220 FUNCTIONAL PERSPECTIVE: GROUP NEEDS AND ROLES Objective 3 Describe the functional perspective and its advantages over the trait perspective. Group Communication Principles The functional perspective views leadership as behaviors that may be performed by any group member to maximize group effectiveness. Task and process leadership are discussed. Key Terms Functional perspective 220 Task leadership 220 Process leadership 220 Practice Applying and Assessing Your Skills Chapter 5 introduced you to functional leadership roles that help groups move toward their goals by addressing task as well as process concerns (group building and group maintenance). Begin this exercise by writing these roles on index cards, one role per card. Distribute the cards randomly, and anonymously, throughout your group. Take a few minutes to review the sections in Chapter 5 that describe these roles. Spend 15 to 20 minutes discussing an ongoing project or a topic assigned by your instructor, during which you assume the role written on your index card. After 20 minutes, reshuffle and redistribute the role cards. Assume your new role and continue the discussion for another 15 to 20 minutes. Now discuss the following questions in your groups: Can you identify who was enacting each role? Whose roles were most consistent with their natural behavior? Whose roles were the most “out of character”? With people assuming these assigned roles, did the group seem to function better or worse than usual? Why? Were some roles difficult or impossible to enact in this situation? Why? Who in your group is naturally most task oriented? Most process oriented? SITUATIONAL PERSPECTIVE: ADAPTING STYLE TO CONTEXT Objective 4 Explain the relationship between situational variables and the effectiveness of different leadership styles. Group Communication Principles The situational perspective takes into account all these factors—leadership behaviors, task needs, and process needs—but also takes into account leadership style and situation. Key Terms Situational perspective 224 Leadership style 225 Practice Applying and Assessing Your Skills Task Process Leadership Questionnaire The following items describe aspects of leadership behavior. Respond to each item according to the way you would most likely act if you were the leader of a work group. Circle whether you would most likely behave in the described way: Always (A), Frequently (F), Occasionally (O), Seldom (S), or Never (N) A F O S N 1. I would most likely act as the spokesperson of the group. A F O S N 2. I would encourage overtime work. A F O S N 3. I would allow members complete freedom in their work. A F O S N 4. I would encourage the use of uniform procedures. A F O S N 5. I would permit members to use their own judgment in solving problems. A F O S N 6. I would stress being ahead of competing groups. A F O S N 7. I would speak as a representative of the group. A F O S N 8. I would needle members for greater effort. A F O S N 9. I would try out my ideas in the group. A F O S N 10. I would let the members do their work the way they think best. A F O S N 11. I would be working hard for a promotion. A F O S N 12. I would tolerate postponement and uncertainty. A F O S N 13. I would speak for the group if visitors were present. A F O S N 14. I would keep the work moving at a rapid pace. A F O S N 15. I would turn the members loose on a job and let them go to it. A F O S N 16. I would settle conflicts when they occur in the group. A F O S N 17. I would get swamped by details. A F O S N 18. I would represent the group at outside meetings. A F O S N 19. I would be reluctant to allow the members any freedom of action. A F O S N 20. I would decide what should be done and how it should be done. A F O S N 21. I would push for increased production. A F O S N 22. I would let some members have authority which I could keep. A F O S N 23. Things would usually turn out as I had predicted. A F O S N 24. I would allow the group a high degree of initiative. A F O S N 25. I would assign group members to particular tasks. A F O S N 26. I would be willing to make changes. A F O S N 27. I would ask the members to work harder. A F O S N 28. I would trust the group members to exercise good judgment. A F O S N 29. I would schedule the work to be done. A F O S N 30. I would refuse to explain my actions. A F O S N 31. I would persuade others that my ideas are to their advantage. A F O S N 32. I would permit the group to set its own pace. A F O S N 33. I would urge the group to beat its previous record. A F O S N 34. I would act without consulting the group. A F O S N 35. I would ask that group members follow standard rules and regulations. P _______________ T _______________ To Score the Questionnaire a. Circle the item number for items 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 30, 34, and 35. b. Write the number 1 in front of a circled item number if you responded S (seldom) or N (never) to that item. c. Also write a number 1 in front of item numbers not circled if you responded A (always) or F (frequently). d. Circle the number 1s that you have written in front of the following items: 3, 5, 8, 10, 15, 18, 19, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, and 35. e. Count the circled number 1s. This is your score for concern for people. Record the score in the blank following the letter P at the end of the questionnaire. f. Count the uncircled number 1s. This is your score for concern for task. Record this number in the blank following the letter T. Task Process Leadership-Style Profile Sheet To determine your style of leadership, mark your score on the concern for task dimension (T) on the left-hand arrow below. Next, move to the right-hand arrow and mark your score on the concern for people dimension (P). Draw a straight line that connects the P and T scores. The point at which that line crosses the shared leadership arrow indicates your score on that dimension. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP Objective 5 Discuss transformational leadership and identify three transformational leadership skills. Group Communication Principles Transformational leaders motivate others to move beyond self-interest and work for the greater collective good.53 Transformational leaders have a sense of vision and purpose. Management consultant and author Peter Senge proposes three critical skills of transformational leadership: (1) building shared vision, (2) surfacing and challenging mental models, and (3) engaging in systems thinking.54 Key Term Transformational leadership 228 EMERGENT LEADERSHIP IN SMALL GROUPS Objective 6 Explain how leaders are likely to emerge in a leaderless group. Group Communication Principles Leaders emerge through a “method of residues” in which the group eliminates contenders one by one. In the final analysis, groups are most likely to accept “the contender who provided the optimum blend of task efficiency and personal consideration. The leader who emerged was the one that others thought would be of most value to the entire group and whose orders and directions they trusted and could follow.”55 Key Term Consensus 234 Practice Applying and Assessing Your Skills Consider the stages in group formation that are described in Chapter 3. Identify which leadership functions might be the most appropriate at each stage of development.