The text gives us several theories on leadership and management in Chapter 8. Which one are you most likely to use should you be in the position where you are responsible for the productivity for a group of people? What strengths come along with this theory? What are its weaknesses?
What influences my answer the most is the experiment that Kurt Lewin made in the 1930's, in which there were four groups of ten year old boys [with five members in each], meeting to participate in arts, crafts and in similar hobbies. The groups experienced a succession of various adult leaders, who assumed a different leadership style - Authoritarian, Democratic, and Lassez-Faire [since the latter term is not often used, in brief, under lassez-faire leadership, the management refuses to help the group].
Here are the findings, as presented on udel.edu:
Maintenance output. First, the researchers found that the democratic leadership style led to greater satisfaction with the group experience than either the authoritarian or the laissez faire styles. The experimenters asked the 20 boys if they preferred the democratic or the authoritarian leaders. Nineteen of them said that they favored the democratic leaders. The scientists then asked 10 of the boys to compare the democratic and the laissez faire-style leaders. Out of these 10, 7 said that they preferred the democratic leadership method.
Second, the groups that had the democratic-style leaders appeared to be the most cohesive. During the study, one of the methods that scientists used to measure levels of cohesiveness was to determine the ratio between how often the members used group-oriented pronouns, such as "we" and "us," and how often they used individual-oriented pronouns, such as "I" and "me." In addition, the researchers looked at other indicators of cohesiveness, including the levels of friendly statements, mutual praise, sharing of work materials, and playfulness. The democratic groups had the highest levels of these factors. The laissez faire groups were also fairly cohesive, perhaps in response to their "nonleading" leaders.
In contrast, the groups with leaders who used an authoritarian style were far less cohesive than the other groups. Observers compared the behavior of the boys in the authoritarian-led groups with the behavior of those in the democratic-led groups. They noted 30 times as many acts of hostility and 8 times as many acts of aggression in the authoritarian groups. In addition, authoritarian-led sessions had the highest levels of statements of discontent and the largest levels of absenteeism.
Task output. As for their work output, both the authoritarian and the democratic groups outpaced the laissez faire groups. The boys in the authoritarian groups worked 74 percent of the time when their leaders were present. This compared with a work level of 50 percent for boys in democratic groups and 33 percent in the laissez faire groups. However, when the leaders left the room, these percentages changed. Groups following a democratic leader continued to work at a 46 percent level. In contrast, the work time for authoritarian groups fell drastically to only 29 percent, implying that the members of the authoritarian groups had little desire to work. On the other hand, groups with leaders using a laissez faire style actually worked more when their leaders left the room. Their work time increased to 52 percent. This result implies that these members remained motivated.
Finally, the researchers judged the work of democratic groups highly. They considered this work to be of higher quality and originality than the performance of authoritarian and laissez faire groups.
Kurt Lewin's experiment proves that the highest levels of satisfaction and cohesiveness resulted from a democratic style of leadership, as well as producing a greater desire to work and to produce quality work. I therefore believe that the democratic method is the best of the three leadership styles - however, I do not believe that the democratic style is always the best. For instance, as the material for class brought out, authoritarian leadership is useful in a correctional setting [e.g., prison] and situations in which there are relatively inexperienced employees who need a high degree of direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment