Interpersonal Communication: leadership

Group Leadership: Lewin et al

Lewin, Lippitt and White

One of the best known investigations of the effects of different leadership styles was conducted in the 1930s by Lippitt and White. Known as 'Leadership and Group Life', the study was conducted under the leadership of Kurt Lewin. The study involved directing groups of schoolchildren in the production of arts and crafts artefacts in four different clubs. They had three types of leader assigned to them:

• authoritarian - this leader was to remain aloof and to use orders without consultation in directing the group activities
• democratic - this leader was to offer guidance, encourage the children and participate in the group
• laissez-faire - this leader gave the children knowledge, but did not become involved and generally participated little in the group's activities

The groups were carefully matched for IQ, popularity, energy and so on and all worked on the same project of making masks.

Results

• Democratic - morale was high, relationships between the group members were friendly, as well as with the group leader. When the group leader left the room, the group showed itself capable of working independently. The group showed a fair amount of originality, and, although they produced rather less than the 'authoritarian' group, the quality of their productions was considered higher.
• Authoritarian - in these groups, there were found to be two types of behaviour - 'aggressive' and 'apathetic'. The aggressive children were rebellious and constantly demanded attention from the leader, as well as tending to blame other members of the group whenever anything went wrong. The apathetic children placed fewer demands on the leader and were less critical of him, but, when they were given a non-authoritarian leader, they tended to fool around and engage in horseplay. The groups' productivity was higher than the 'democratic' groups, but the quality of their masks was not as high.
• Laissez-faire - these were the worst groups of all. They did not produce many masks and those they produced were of poor quality. Their group satisfaction was the lowest, they co-operated little and placed great demands on the leader, showing little ability to work independently.

Conclusions

Overall, then, the democratic leadership style seemed to be the most successful, though it's worth pointing out that some boys preferred the authoritarian style, especially one boy whose father was an army officer. This might suggest that the boys responded best to the leadership style they perceived as 'right' or 'natural' and, since they had grown up in the USA, where great emphasis is placed in schooling on the democratic traditions, it could be that they had been socialised into perceiving the democratic style as the 'right' one for leaders to adopt.

It could be that different leadership styles are appropriate in different circumstances. Certainly, it seems that every so often in democracies people yearn for a strong leader who promptly tramples all over their democratic freedoms. Hitler and Mussolini are obvious examples, but de Gaulle in France in 1958 and Thatcher in Britain in 1979 are presumably also symptomatic of the same malaise.

Related Articles:

Group communication

Management theory

McCann's Team Management Wheel

Motivation