Chapter 10 - Leadership: Non-Communication Approaches
THIS CHAPTER WILL DISCUSS: 
1. How permanent characteristics are related to members' perceptions of leadership. 
2. Lewin's distinctions between democratic, authoritarian, and laissez faire styles. 
3. The later distinction between task and maintenance styles. 
4. The influence of situations on leadership style. 
5. The ways in which traits and situations interact to determine leadership effectiveness. 
INTRODUCTION
We have purposely delayed discussing group leadership until this point because leadership is a complex subject best approached after one has a grounding in the other topics that we have examined, such as conformity and power. However, the time has come for us to approach the topic head on and discuss it fully. 
In this chapter, and the next, we will present a series of theoretical approaches to leadership. In this chapter, we will examine approaches in which communication is not given a central role in explanations for how leadership works. In the next, we will describe approaches that do give communication a critical role in explanations. To a greater or lesser extent, every approach we will discuss has made a contribution to our knowledge about leadership. It is best to examine all the theories to understand fully what scientists know about leadership. Interestingly, hindsight helps us to realize this. The contribution that each theoretical viewpoint made was not always apparent to the scientists who used them. 
First, before we go any further, we need to define leadership. 
What Is Leadership?

When we began examining groups in Chapter 1, we needed to define the term because scientists use different perspectives to study small groups, and each perspective has its own view of what a group is and how it works. We now need to define the term "leadership" for similar reasons. To reach our definition, we shall examine various perspectives in turn. Each has its own view of leadership. 

Relational Definition Let us begin with the relational point of view. As we described earlier, this perspective holds that a group is a collection of people with interdependent goals. Members are able to promote one another toward the goals that each has. How would the concept of leadership fit into this idea? 
We can use a matrix to diagram how the relational perspective defines leadership. Recall from Chapter 5 how we are able to represent the concept of "behavior control" through the use of these diagrams. Consider a two-person group, in which members Harold and Tim must choose between two options. Their possible choices are illustrated in the matrix shown in Figure 10.1. As you can see, each has some behavior control over the other. 

FIGURE 10.1 
		Tim			
			Yes		No	
Harold			8		4	
	Yes	6		-5		
			2		6 	
	No	-7		8		
According to the relational perspective, one of the men is the "leader" in the matrix. Let us describe why this is so. Both Tim and Harold receive their best returns when they make the same choice, both choosing "Yes" or both choosing "No." It is true that Tim has a slight preference for the simultaneous choice of "Yes." Similarly, Harold would be happiest if both group members decided on "No." Nevertheless, neither "Yes" nor "No" is intrinsically a better choice for either man. Something different happens, however, when the men make opposite choices. Tim will always receive some profit, no matter what. This is not true for Harold. Instead, Harold actually loses "points" when the men do not agree. This means that each choice affects Harold more than it affects Tim. In essence, Harold needs to try not to conflict with the choice that Tim makes. Tim has no such worries. 
Thus, we can say that Tim has more behavioral control over Harold than Harold has over Tim. Tim has a power "differential." Tim can use this differential, for instance, by always choosing "Yes." This means that he rewards Harold for choosing "Yes" but punishes him if he chooses "No." If Harold does rebel and chooses "No," Tim still receives a score of two. Harold would prefer that both men decide on "No," but he will probably follow Tim's lead and say "Yes" in this situation. According to the relational perspective, the outcome is that Tim will be "leading" Harold. The matrix has shown how one person can be a "leader" over another. 
This approach implies that a group's leader is the person who is able to act the most independently in relation to the other group members. He or she has the most to win and/or the least to lose from group interaction. This concept matches the intuitive notion of "power." However, this is not our natural idea of "leadership." For instance, we know that when a company goes bankrupt it is the owner who has the most to lose. Thus, the relational definition may not imply a satisfying definition of leadership. Thibaut and Kelley (1959) examined the relational approach to leadership. 

Interactional Definition 
According to the interactional approach, a group is a collection of individuals whose interaction has become interdependent. Let us again use the example of a two-person group to illustrate this idea. The two members in this situation can either ask each other questions or make comments to each other. Figure 10.2 is a diagram of the interact probabilities of the group. 

FIGURE 10.2 

As you can see, for whatever reason, Person B always makes comments after Person A asks questions. In contrast, when Person B asks something, Person A never replies with comments. Instead, Person A responds to questions by posing further questions. When this happens, his or her new questions receive comments again from Person B. 
The result of this is that Person A appears to control the conversation. This is because he or she is "leading" the discussion, from an interactional perspective. Person A can control the conversation by refusing to answer questions. A police interrogation is an example of this kind of conversation. The interrogator is the "leader," according to the interactional point of view. He or she leads by controlling the interaction that can take place. This is a different definition of leadership than the one that the relational perspective provides. However, as with the relational definition it appears more in line with our idea of "power" than "leadership." This ut also may not imply a satisfying conception of leadership. 

Structural Perspective 
As you recall, a scientist who has a structural perspective conceives of a group according to the roles that members play. In a group, each person functions in a certain capacity. For example, a group might have "jokesters" or "organizers" and so on. In addition, the theorist with this viewpoint would expect each role to fulfill certain group norms. The norms describe the behaviors expected from a group member with that role. For example, the jokester should make people feel relaxed, the organizer should give the group an outline of tasks, and so on. 
How does this perspective define leadership? The implication of the structural point of view is that groups need to have a member who plays the role of "leader." This person fulfills the group norms regarding leadership. In essence, he or she performs the behaviors that leaders are supposed to fulfill. For example, a leader may speak first at meetings, call for votes, and give praise to the group. This perspective is probably closest to how we naturally conceive of leadership. 

Functional Perspective 
There is a functional version of the structural perspective, as we have discussed previously. The functional viewpoint maintains that a group is a social system. The system has certain goals, such as survival and goal attainment. To fulfill these goals, the social system must contain a set of properties. For example, a group might have the property that it contains four members who are very good at math. These properties have to be capable of performing certain "functions." Functions, like norms, are behaviors. The functions are necessary for the group to attain its goal. For instance, the group with members who are good at math may have the goal of winning a math prize. The talented members must function in a way that will help the group succeed at this goal. 
Researchers with this perspective believe that some of the necessary functions in groups are leadership functions. Therefore, groups must exhibit the appropriate 
properties so that the groups can perform these functions. What properties can fulfill the leadership behaviors? In essence, a group needs to have the property of a member or members who lead. Leaders could do things such as direct meetings and create rules. In this way, the group could fulfill its necessary leadership functions and help the group reach its goals. 
Overall, the functional variant maintains that leaders are able to perform certain functions to help groups succeed. The functional viewpoint is an extremely valuable approach to leadership, as our discussion will reveal. 

Motivational Perspective 
According to this point of view, a group is a collection of people who react to some force. Something drives or prompts them to act as they do. Scientists who hold this viewpoint think of a leader in a group as the person or persons associated with the force that guides the group. He or she either provides the drive itself or determines the means for satisfying it. 

Perceptual Perspective 
The perceptual perspective maintains that a group is a gathering of individuals who define and perceive themselves as a group. This group perception determines who is the group's leader. In essence, the members define a person as leader, and he or she then is so. 

Our Perspective 
As you might expect, different perspectives have definitions of leadership that vary greatly. Which definition will we use as we examine the topic in this book? The answer is that we will not use a precise definition. Instead, we will be using all of the concepts that we have discussed above. However, we will rely on them to varying degrees because some of the perspectives we have discussed are more appropriate for our discussion than others. We can make some overall comments here as to why this is so. 
The relational and interactional perspectives, as we have shown, do not sugest satisfactory definitions of leadership. Perhaps because of this, neither has had a great deal of influence on specific theories and research concerning leadership. On the other hand, the remaining four viewpoints have had a definite impact on the study of leadership. We will be making many references to the definitions that all four perspectives provide. Each has been important, in different ways, for the research that we shall examine. 

THE TRAIT APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP
The first time that researchers attempted to use a scientific method to study leadership was in the 1920s. Taken as a group, these early scientists worked with a basic hypothesis regarding who leaders were. They assumed that leaders were people with personal characteristics, or traits, that set them above and apart from nonleaders. This assumption was consistent with a philosophical view that was popular in the nineteenth century. 
The "Great Man Theory" 
The 1800s philosophical outlook that created the trait approach is known as 
the "Great Man Theory of Leadership." The theory states that certain people are born to be leaders. They have a special quality that sets them apart from "common" folk. The idea is that the great leaders of the world would have assumed a leadership role at any place or time in history. Thus, Julius Caesar or Napoleon would have been influential figures anywhere, at any time. Note that the "Great Man" title reflects the thinking of the times. Back then, most people did not consider women capable of possessing leadership qualities. We use the title here only because it is historically correct. 

The Early Scientific Approach
Literal Approach 
In the 1920s, various leadership researchers occasionally took the "Great Man" hypothesis literally. They searched for characteristics that differentiated between leaders and followers. They thought that there were certain qualities that only a leader could possess, such as charisma. Usually, however, the scientists looked at the characteristics that all people possess to some degree. They then would cautiously attempt to discover which traits were particularly evident in leaders. 
It was true that the idea that certain people would always be leaders, no matter what, intrigued researchers. However, it was not just the nineteenth century "Great Man" theory that caused scientists to examine leadership. In the 1930s, fascist governments in Europe and Asia grew increasingly belligerent. As they did so, the democracies of Europe and North America became fearful of impending war. In times of war, nations need leaders. They also need to find them quickly. Hence, these early scientists wanted to devise a psychological test that would allow them to recognize good leaders easily. If they could create such a test, countries could use it during the impending years of crisis. A leadership test would make it a relatively simple task for a country to place gifted people into the necessary leadership roles. 
Early scientists created various types of leadership tests that they hoped would fulfill this need. Each test attempted to create a method to predict who would be a leader and who would not be. Before we describe the results of these tests, it is useful for us to discuss how the researchers performed their studies. 

Methodology 
These early researchers were interested in discovering which traits contributed to a person's degree of leadership. To do this, they decided to compare measurements of leadership scores with measurements of other traits. The scientists used a particular method to compare various measurements. This technique allowed the researchers to discover how the different measurements were related. We shall discuss their methodology step by step. 
For example, five people have taken an IQ test. The researchers designed 
the IQ exam to measure the characteristic of "intelligence." The average score on this test is 100. A score above this mark means a person is more intelligent than the average person. The test participants have also taken an exam to measure leadership. The leadership test has 10 items. Their scores on the two examinations are shown in Table 10.1. 

Table 10.1	Positive Correlation	
Person	IQ	# of Leadership Items Correct	
A	140	10	
B	120	8	
C	100	6	
D	80	4	
E	60	2	
Positive correlation. As you can see, as one column increases, the other also increases. We call this relationship between the two columns a positive correlation. In addition, whenever the IQ score increases by 20 points, there is a corresponding increase of two correct items on the leadership test. Thus, the relationship between the two tests is perfect. They have an exact correlation of 20 IQ points for every two correct leadership items. 
We could take this result and conclude, for instance, that an IQ test can measure leadership without error. We shall represent this relationship between IQ and leadership with the number +1.0. 

Negative correlation. The study also created a column with the number of items that the participants answered incorrectly on the leadership exam. The researchers examined the relationship between the IQ scores and this new column. The data are shown in Table 10.2. 

Table 10.2	Negative Correlation	
Person	IQ	# of Leadership Items Wrong	
A	140	0	
B	120	2	
C	100	4	
D	80	6	
E	60	8	

In this case, there is still a perfect relationship between the two columns of data. Whenever the IQ score increases by 20 points, the number of leadership incorrect answers decreases by two. This is again a perfect correlation, but it is a negative one. As one score goes up, the other goes down. We use the number -1.0 to represent this perfect, negative correlation. Of course, the number of correct and incorrect answers on the leadership test are, by definition, inverses of each other. Hence, that the perfect negative correlation matches the perfect positive one, is no surprise in this research study. 

Degree of correlation. The point is that there is a difference between the number of a correlation value and the sign of that value. The number shows the degree of correlation and it reflects the research data findings. The sign, on the other hand, reveals the way in which researchers have chosen to define the columns. Something has a "+" or a "-" value based on which data the scientists have chosen to examine together. The scientists essentially can control which research findings they compare and, in turn, whether the correlation has a negative or a positive sign. This means that scientists often are not very surprised about what sign a correlation might have. 
Instead, it is usually the degree of association that researchers find of most interest. Whether positive or negative, this number is what reveals how well the data columns relate. This is information the scientists want most. 

No correlation. Finally, the study compared one last pair of example columns as seen in Table 10.3. As you can see, there is no relationship between IQ levels and artistic ability. The former does not measure the latter. In this case, we can represent the relationship between these columns with the number 0. 

Table 10.3	No Correlation	
Person	IQ	Score on Artistic Ability Test	
A	140	6	
B	120	7	
C	100	5	
D	80	7	
E	60	6	

The correlation coefficient. What do scientists call a number, such as +1.0 or -1.0, that shows the degree of correlation? Such a number is a "correlation coefficient." It is a measure of the relationship between two sets of research data. Any coefficient has a possible range of +1.0 to -1.0. In "real life," correlations will never be perfect, as our first two examples were. A measurement of "1.0" is practically impossible. The only way researchers can achieve a perfect correlation is if they mistakenly relate two alternative measures of the same thing. For instance, they might accidentally compare columns of the number of correct items and the number of incorrect items from the same test. Such a comparison would create a perfect correlation. 

Use of Correlation Coefficients 
Researchers consider that any coefficient more extreme than .7, either positive or negative, is very strong. It is extreme enough so that the two measures are indistinguishable for most practical purposes. For example, in the example study that we reviewed, there was a perfect correlation, with the very large number of 1.0, between the column from the IQ test and the column from the leadership test. This means that scientists could interchange the tests. If they want to find out someone's IQ level, they could just as well give the person the leadership examination as the IQ exam, and vice versa. 
Scientists could equate two tests that correlate at a level of .7 similarly. They could interchange them. Scientists have found that such extreme correlations are not necessary for their purposes, however. Any coefficient greater than +/.-5 can be quite useful. 

"Overlapping" data. How much can a correlation coefficient reveal? Scientists find the idea of "overlapping" data helpful to them. To discover how information overlaps, they take the coefficient and square it. This gives them a number that equals the degree of usefulness of the correlation. It represents the extent to which the two columns of data overlap. When information overlaps a great deal, the findings are very useful. Consider Diagrams 1 through 4 in Figure 10.3. 
Imagine that every circle represents the "space" that measure A and measure B occupy. Diagram 1 represents a correlation of 0. There is no overlap between the spaces of A and B. They have no relationship. In Diagram 2, the spaces overlap totally. The coefficient for this diagram is 1.0. The 1.0 is either positive or negative, depending on how the researchers have defined the measures. The "square" of this coefficient is 1.0 in either case. 
The degree of correlation in Diagram 3 is about .7, positive or negative. The square of this coefficient is about .5. This means that each measure accounts for half the space of the other. Diagram 4 shows a correlation of about +/-.3. The space the two measures share works out to about .1. Such an overlap may not seem like a large amount. However, there are many factors that can affect any one variable. Hence, a consistent relationship of .1 can be 
FIGURE 10.3 

quite meaningful in theoretical research. 
It is true, however, that a correlation of +/-.3 is not of so much use practically as it is theoretically. In a "real world" sense, a person would hardly be able to predict much about one measure by using the other if the coefficient were only +/-.3. 
The early scientists researching leadership used the correlation coefficient as an important part of their methodology. The coefficient could help them relate their various tests. It helped them judge whether traits determine who is a leader and who is not. 

The Research 

Physical characteristics. The earliest studies regarding leadership attempted to discover whether the physical characteristics of people correlated with group leadership. The experimenters found out that groups tended to choose relatively tall and large people as leaders more often than relatively shorter and smaller individuals. This may have been because large people seem most similar to what leaders are supposed to look like physically. 
However, research showed that size had no appreciable effect on the success rate of leaders. Hence, the scientists failed to show any correlation between physical characteristics and leadership abilities. 

Psychological characteristics. The researchers then turned to psychological traits. Throughout the 1930s and 1940s, experimenters performed scores of studies to investigate this idea. Their work was based on the hypothesis that various psychological characteristics exist. They attempted to relate these characteristics either to whether people were chosen to be leaders, or whether outside observers believed that a person was acting like a leader. In Chapter 3, we discussed how people form impressions of one another. They do so by using adjective terms to describe "traits." The early researchers used this idea also, labeling the psychological characteristics they studied "traits." 
However, in these studies, traits played a role that was different from the one they usually play in the formation of impressions. As we discussed earlier, people wish to form impressions of one another. To do so, they use traits merely as labels to represent behavior that they assume is consistent. They use adjectives to describe behavior that they see during particular circumstances. They might say a person is "clumsy" or "smart," for instance, as they watch a person behave at a party. The early leadership researchers used adjectives differently. They believed that traits represent actual characteristics that influence people's behavior. The traits influence people across time and in all situations. 

Research results. The results of these studies were discouraging. The researchers had hypothesized that certain traits relate to who does and does not become a leader. In the experiments, very little commonality existed among these variables. Stogdill reviewed this research in 1948. He was able to show evidence that a few traits were related to leadership choice. These traits were intelligence, initiative, sociability, dependability, and activity. Experimenters measured these traits and then measured the data regarding leadership choice. They were able to find a correlation between the two sets of measurements. However, it was rarely higher than a coefficient of .25. 
In other words, researchers could discover the degree to which a person possessed a certain trait and relate it to the odds that the person will become a leader. However, at best, this process could help them predict only 6 percent of these odds. This is far too small a correlation to have any practical value. It would be very difficult for society to test a person's psychological traits and predict who would become a leader and who would not. 
Since that time, some researchers have turned their attention away from leadership choice and studied whether traits are related to people's success as leaders. Bass (1990) reviewed much of this research. The same types of traits that are associated with leadership choice, such as intelligence and initiative, are also related with leadership success. Again, the correlations are fairly low, rarely higher than .3. 

Further Research 
Further studies have also shown the fallacy of the "Great Man Theory of Leadership." We now know that it is wrong for researchers to believe that a person can have specific characteristics that would make him or her a leader in all circumstances. Certain experiments have particularly revealed that a person who is a leader in one situation might not be a leader in a second one. 
Carter and Nixon (1949) had high school juniors and seniors work in two-person groups on three tasks. The first task was an intellectual one, involving plotting data on a graph. The second was a clerical job, during which the students sorted cards and proofread. The last was a mechanical task, in which the students built a scaffold. The researchers measured leadership behavior in two ways. First, they had observers subjectively judge which students provided leadership during the tasks. Second, the experimenters analyzed tape recordings of the dyads' conversations. Whenever a participant made suggestions or initiated activities, the researchers counted that as an example of leadership behavior. 
Before the dyads met together, Carter and Nixon asked school administrators to rate each student's leadership. Apparently, these administrators implicitly believed in the "Great Man" theory. They generally believed that certain students would always be leaders, no matter what the task. Hence, the school officials expected consistent leadership among the three tasks. The correlation coefficient of their predictions across the three tasks was an extremely high .90. 
However, the administrators were wrong. Actual leadership behaviors were not strongly correlated among the tasks. The same students were not always the leaders. Between the intellectual and clerical tasks, the correlation was .48. For the clerical and mechanical jobs, the correlation dropped further to .38. Finally, for the intellectual and mechanical tasks, the coefficient was only .18. Clearly, leadership behavior in this study was task-specific. Participants led each other according to the tasks they were performing. It was not true that certain students always were better leaders than other participants. 

General Conclusions: Trait Approach
We must conclude two things from these various studies. First, personality traits do not predict leadership. Second, leadership is not constant across situations. However, despite these conclusions, we should not completely dismiss the trait approach to leadership. We have been examining studies in which impartial observers rated the leadership behaviors of group members. What happens when the actual members rated one another? How do they perceive one another's leadership abilities? Scientists have found that traits are important to these "internal" group perceptions. 
This is a valid aspect of the "Great Man" theory. Traits do relate to the perceptions that group members have regarding one another's leadership abilities. It seems that people often perceive of leaders in a certain way. This can carry over into whether they believe someone is a leader in their group. For instance, as we noted earlier, researchers have known for a long time that tall and large people are more likely to become leaders than small people. 

Lord, DeVader, and Alliger Review. Lord, DeVader, and Alliger (1986) reviewed research regarding this aspect of the trait approach. They looked at studies in which group members rated one another's leadership. Lord et al. found consistent correlations between these ratings and certain traits. Particularly, the trait of intelligence related to leadership ratings. The coefficient for this relationship was .38. 

Kenny and Zaccaro Review. Kenny and Zaccaro (1983) similarly reviewed leadership research. They examined three types of studies. The first type included groups in which a constant membership performed a number of tasks. This setup was the same as the Carter and Nixon study described above. The second type included groups with a changing membership that worked on the same task several times. The third category of groups included ones with a changing membership that performed a number of tasks. In all groups, the members rank-ordered one another for leadership abilities. Kenny and Zaccaro found great stability in these rankings across tasks. They were stable despite changes in task type and/or changes in group membership. 

Thus, it appears that specific people may have qualities that lead other group members to choose them as leaders across different situations. However, there is no reason to believe that these qualities have any effect on people's success at leadership across different circumstances. As we all can predict, it is success at leadership that particularly interests researchers. Theorists wish to account for who can truly lead and who cannot. Success proves who is actually a leader. 
Hence, we can use the trait approach as a tool to help us predict the person a group will choose as leader. However, the approach is not very helpful as far as predicting whether that person will be able to lead successfully.. 
By the 1950s it seemed clear to researchers that leadership ability is task-specific. This led experimenters to search for situational factors in leadership. However, in the meantime, other theorists had been experimenting with a "style" approach to leadership. We shall examine this hypothesis next. 

THE STYLE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP
The basic premise of the style approach to leadership is that a leader's "style" determines his or her success. A style is the method of leading that a person uses. 
Kurt Lewin was the theorist most responsible for this approach. We have discussed Lewin's theoretical contributions to small-group research throughout this book. It is now time to discuss the man himself. His life affected how he viewed leadership. Lewin was a German Jew who gained an international reputation for his research on perception during the 1920s. During the 1930s, Lewin was able to escape the fate that the Nazis planned for the Jewish citizenry of Germany by immigrating to the United States. As a new American, Lewin was enamored with our democratic traditions and decided to research leadership. He wished to show that democratic leadership is better than the authoritarianism that Hitler was using in Germany at the time. 
We examined Lewin's field theory in Chapters 3 and 5. As we explained, he conceived of a life-space for every person and group. There are regions within this life-space. Forces attract people to or repel them from the various regions. As we have described, we can represent the group itself as an entity that moves around its own life-space. 
Lewin believed that a leader has the ability to manipulate the group's life-space and direct its movement toward various goals. Thus, consistent with our discussion in Chapter 5, the leader has power over the group. Lewin decided that there are three styles of leadership. The styles are based on the relationship that the leader has with his or her group. A leader has a "democratic" style if he or she manipulates the life-space to help the group reach its own goals. A leader with an "authoritarian" style manipulates the group's life-space to force the group to reach the leader's goals. A leader with a "laissez faire" style does not manipulate the group's life-space at all. 

Lewin's Research
Methodology 
In the late 1930s, Lewin and his students Lippitt and White performed a landmark study of the three leadership styles. They wanted to determine how each style would affect a group (see White & Lippitt, 1968). The groups they chose to study were made up of 10-year-old boys. There were four groups with five members in each. The boys met to participate in arts and crafts activities or in similar hobbies. The groups experienced a succession of various adult leaders. These leaders were Lippitt, White, and two other coworkers. Each adult assumed a different leadership style. The study defined these styles in the following ways: 

1. Authoritarian leaders 
a. These leaders determined all policies for the group members. They told the boys which projects to do. 
b. They also dictated the methods and stages of goal attainment one step at a time. The adults would give instructions for a subsequent step only after the boys had completed the previous step. They did not give them all of the instructions at once at the beginning of a project. The researchers reasoned that the boys would have little understanding of the project as a whole if the leaders gave them instructions in this step-by-step manner. Without an understanding of the whole project, the boys would have little ability to make their own creative contributions to the assignment. This meant that the leader would have increased control over their activities. Remember that according to Lewin, the authoritarian leader wants group members to reach the leader's goals, not their own. 
c. The authoritarian leaders also assigned work companions. They told the boys with whom they could work on their projects. 
d. They further evaluated the boys individually. They did not judge the group as a whole. They expected that the approach would cause the boys to be concerned with their own tasks rather than with the work of the group as a whole. 

2. Democratic leaders 
a. These leaders encouraged the group to make its own policy. They asked the boys which projects they wanted to do. 
b. They also explained the stages of the project, along with the methods of goal attainment, in advance. This gave the boys the knowledge that they needed to take the initiative concerning how the group would perform its task. Remember that the democratic leader wants to help group members reach their own goals. 
c. They further allowed the boys to choose their own work companions. 
d. The democratic leaders evaluated the work of the group as a whole. They did not judge members separately. They expected that this method would influence the boys to be concerned with the whole group's efforts rather than with only their own work. 

3. Laissez faire leaders 
a. Laissez faire leaders refused to help the group choose its policy. 
b. They also never volunteered information on the stages and methods necessary to attain the group's goals. 
c. Further, these leaders refused to help the boys choose their work companions. 
d. They also did not evaluate any work. The laissez faire leaders only answered questions and provided work materials. 

Findings 
Lewin et al. performed a detailed analysis of the behavior of the boys during their meetings. They also interviewed the boys concerning their feelings about the sessions. This work resulted in a mass of information from the study. 

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. 

Revisions of Lewin's Research Findings 

Lewin et al. found that a democratic leadership style caused the groups of boys in their study to have high levels of satisfaction and cohesiveness. In addition, these groups had a great desire to work and to produce quality work. Due to these findings, Lewin et al. concluded that the democratic method is the best of the three leadership styles. However, there is some doubt about this conclusion. Subsequent research has led scientists to reconsider the idea that the democratic style of leadership is always best. A review of this research by Gastil (1994) revealed that no consistent differences in group performance has been found between groups led by democratic and authoritarian leaders. Member satisfaction appears to be higher for democratic-led groups when the task the group is performing is complex. When the group's task is simple, there is no difference in satisfaction due to leadership style. 
Some studies have been performed that have suggested that authoritarian leadership may sometimes be better that democratic. Here are two examples. 

Shaw's research. Shaw's (1955) study of imposed networks is representative of some of the later studies that reconsidered Lewin's findings. Shaw used three kinds of four-person groups in his study: (1) wheel structures, (2) kite configurations as illustrated 

and (3) comcon networks. Each group performed mathematical problems, using either a democratic or an authoritarian leader. For almost every combination of network and problem, authoritarian-led groups were less satisfied but worked faster than democratic-led groups. Authoritarian groups also made fewer errors and needed to exchange fewer messages to complete the task, in comparison with the democratic groups. 

"Real-World" Research. Studies of "real-world" groups also add doubt to Lewin's conclusions. Berkowitz (1953) studied 72 business and government groups. He found that these groups were most satisfied when they had leaders who controlled their procedures and made their decisions. However, significantly, the members were only satisfied as long as they felt that their input could influence the leader. Similarly, research has found that military groups expect authoritarian leadership. They are confused when their leaders use another leadership style. With these situations, scientists found that authoritarian leadership worked best, when it was done well. 

New Conclusions 
We have 50 years of hindsight to our advantage as we reexamine Lewin's experimental findings. It now appears that Lewin's studies were biased against authoritarian leadership. As we discussed, he had an ideological commitment to discredit Nazism. This apparently influenced him to use Hitler as a model for the authoritarian leadership style. How did he create this particular type of authoritarian person? Lewin's authoritarian leaders gave instructions only step by step, and they evaluated only individuals, not the group as a whole. 
However, is this the dictionary definition of an authoritarian leader? It is not. Clearly, by definition, an authoritarian leader must determine all group policy. However, there is no reason an authoritarian leader has to give out instructions step by step. For instance, a football coach cannot win unless the entire team understands the game plan before the game. Similarly, there is no reason an authoritarian leader cannot evaluate the group as a whole. Any good sports coach knows this. Thus, Lewin's research showed only how a Hitler-type authoritarian leader would affect a group. It did not credit the advantages that a good authoritarian leader can give to group members. Shaw's and Berkowitz's studies were able to reveal some of these advantages. 
Despite these problems, Lewin's work on leadership continues to be very influential. This is because the distinction between the three styles of leadership that Lewin defined is very useful. We imagine that many of our readers have worked under leaders who could be classified as either democratic, authoritarian, or laissez faire in their styles. Perhaps that style of leadership had an effect on how successfully the group performed or how satisfactory the experience was for the members. 

Task and Maintenance as Leadership Styles
Throughout this book, we have made the distinction between task and maintenance factors in group discussion. We can make this distinction once again in the area of leadership. We can talk about leaders as having either a task or a maintenance style of leadership. 
Different theorists have approached this distinction between task and maintenance leadership styles differently. These differences have important implications. In this section, we will describe three different approaches to task and maintenance leadership style and what these implications are for all three. 

Ohio State Researchers 
After Stogdill published his review of research casting doubt on the value of the trait approach to leadership, he and several colleagues at Ohio State University began to research leadership in organizational settings. They developed a questionnaire that they called the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, or LBDQ. The LBDQ measures the extent to which organizational members perceive that their leaders perform certain leadership behaviors. The scientists analyzed people's answers to the LBDQ to ascertain their perceptions of organizational leadership behavior. The analysis suggested that researchers could classify the perceptions according to two general styles: consideration and initiation of structure. 
Consideration is the extent to which a leader shows concern for the welfare of subordinates. Considerate leaders show appreciation for good work. They stress the importance of job satisfaction and make their subordinates feel comfortable. These leaders also allow the subordinates to participate in decision making. 
Initiation of structure is the extent to which leaders organize work. Structuring leaders initiate and maintain standards and deadlines. They also define in detail their responsibilities and that of their subordinates (see Bass, 1990, for a detailed review of this work). 
Hence, organization members perceive two overall sets of behaviors that are appropriate for leaders. One is to be considerate, and the other is to initiate structures. In essence, these two perceptions distinguish between maintenance and task behaviors. 
The important question is whether leaders who are rated highly in their performance on these two dimensions are more successful than leaders who are rated low. Bass (1990) reported the findings of an unpublished review of research performed by Fisher and Edwards that supported this conclusion. On average, leadership ratings on both dimensions were correlated more than .4 with subordinate job performance and more than .5 with subordinate job satisfaction. However, in an earlier review, Korman (1966) found many studies showed consideration to correlate negatively with job performance and worker satisfaction. It appears that in some situations, group members prefer leaders low on maintenance activities. 

Blake and Mouton 
Other studies into organizational leadership continued the work of the Ohio State research group. Among these researchers were two organizational consultants, Blake and Mouton (1968). 
According to their point of view, assigned leaders have two responsibilities. One involves the group's task, or "production." The other includes the maintenance, or "people," side of the group experience. Blake and Mouton contend that assigned leaders have implicit theories of how important each responsibility is. These theories influence the manner in which assigned leaders work in their groups. 
Blake and Mouton gave organizational leaders questionnaires in order to discover what their implicit theories of leadership were like. They then quantified the various implicit theories of leadership that they distinguished by placing the theories on various coordinates on a "Managerial Grid." The researchers have plotted certain coordinates that correspond to theories (see Figure 10.4). 

FIGURE 10.4 

The grid coordinates, such as 1,9 or 9,5, indicate some theories that Blake and Mouton specifically discussed in their book. The researchers gave names to the types of assigned leaders that might exist. The names indicated the theory that each type of leader would use. The kinds of leaders and their theories are as follows: 

1. 1,1 on the graph = The Bureaucrat. This assigned leader believes in exerting the minimum amount of effort necessary to get the required work done. He or she believes that this minimum is enough to sustain organization membership. 

2. 1,9 on the graph = The Country-Club Manager. This leader gives thoughtful attention to the needs that people have for satisfying relationships. He or she believes that this will lead to a comfortable, friendly organizational atmosphere and work tempo. 

3. 5,5 on the graph = The Compromiser. He or she thinks that adequate organizational performance is possible through balancing the necessity to produce work with the necessity of maintaining the morale of the group at a satisfactory level. 

4. 5,9 on the graph = The Consultative. This person believes that a leader can gain support for his or her performance objectives by involving people in decision making. 

5. 9,1 on the graph = The Task-Master. This assigned leader wants to arrange work conditions in such a way that human elements interfere to only a minimum degree. He or she thinks that this will lead to efficiency in the organization. 

6. 9,5 on the graph = The Benevolent Autocrat. Such a person has a need to control without being arbitrary. This latter concern modulates his or her strong production demands. 

7. 9,9 on the graph = The Ideal. This assigned leader thinks that committed people best accomplish work demands. He or she believes in creating an interdependence, through a common stake in the purpose of the organization, among workers. This leader believes that relationships of trust and respect are important. 

The style Blake and Mouton would most like a leader to adopt is "The Ideal." This style combines concern with the task with consideration for the people performing it. Blake and Mouton expected the best performance from group with "Ideal" leaders. 

General Conclusions: Style Approach
The style approach makes a significant contribution to our knowledge about leadership. The manner in which a person leads is important. However, one must remember that no one style is inherently the "best." Why is this true? 
We have described how the first group of researchers who studied leadership were influenced by the "Great Man Theory." As a result, they assumed that the same person could successfully lead a group in different situations. However, research we discussed earlier showed that different people lead groups in different tasks. A person who is a good leader in one situation may be a poor leader in a different situation. 
It is the same with leadership styles. The research studies we have described in this chapter show that no one style is always better than all the others. The method that succeeds in one situation might fail in another. We can conclude that situation has a great impact on the success of particular leadership styles. If these conclusions are correct, perhaps scientists can best approach their study of leadership by examining situations. Perhaps the circumstance in which group members and their leader find themselves is the most important factor of all. Some researchers reasoned that this might be the case. They were proponents of a third approach to leadership, the situational approach. 

THE SITUATIONAL APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP
The situational approach to leadership is an outgrowth of the style approach. Most generally, the situational approach to leadership is based on the presumption that different styles of leadership are effective in different situations. Therefore, to be successful, leaders must understand the situation in which they and their group is in, and adopt that style of leadership that works best in that circumstance. 
There are several different situational theories of leadership. We will describe two of the most influential of them. 

Hersey and Blanchard's "Life Cycle Theory" of Leadership
Situational theorists have both agreed and disagreed with the ideas we have discussed up to now. They have agreed that there is a distinction between task and maintenance orientation. However, they have disagreed with Blake and Mouton's claim that an ideal leader necessarily performs both dimensions well. Hersey and Blanchard (1969) claimed that the success of a leadership style depends on the subordinates' abilities to accept responsibility and work independently. They believed that leaders should see how independent their subordinates are and adjust their leadership style accordingly. 
To illustrate their claim, Hersey and Blanchard matched "subordinate independence" levels with "directive" and "supportive" leadership styles. In their view, very dependent organization members require leaders to focus all of their attention on task directions. As organization members become somewhat less dependent, leaders must still attend to task direction, but also concern themselves with giving group members emotional support. When organizational members are somewhat independent, leaders need only provide supportiveness. Finally, very independent subordinates prefer to be left alone. Table 10.4 illustrates these predictions. One interesting implication of this idea is that leaders can oversee larger and larger groups as their subordinates become increasingly independent because leaders need to spend less time with each member. 

Table 10.4	Leadership Style	
Subordinate Independence Level	Directive	Supportive	
Very Low	High	Low	
Somewhat Low	High	High	
Somewhat High	Low	High	
Very High	Low	Low	

Subordinates' personalities have an effect on their level of independence. However, the task that the group is performing also has a large impact on independence levels. At one extreme, we know how assembly line tasks affect people. Such jobs require little initiative on the part of the workers. This results in very low independence. This, in turn, requires leaders to adopt a high-task, low-maintenance leadership style. At the other extreme, we see people who are members of "think tanks." These people often require a great deal of direction at the beginning of a project but then progressively less guidance as the task develops. As a consequence, the leader's style should change as the members' independence grows. 
Essentially, there is a process by which group members can become more independent as tasks progress. Hersey and Blanchard compared this process with the changes a person goes through as he or she grows from dependent infancy to independent adulthood. They have come to call their approach the "life cycle theory" of leadership. 
The life-cycle theory makes some intuitive sense. Unfortunately, research studies attempting to evaluate its predictions have only had mixed success. It is not clear whether Hersey and Blanchard's theory is accurate. 

Vroom and Yetton's "Decision-Making Theory" of Leadership
Perhaps sometime you have played the following guessing game: Someone says that they have a number in their head within some range of numbers and you have to guess what that number in their heads is. For example, they might say "I have a number in my head between 1 and 100." You can ask them questions, to which they only respond "yes" or "no." If you plan your sequence of questions correctly, you ought to be able to figure out what the number is using the minimum number of questions. In this example, your first question should be "Is the number between 1 and 50?" You should be able to find the number using at most seven questions. 
Vroom and Yetton's (1973) approach to leadership has some similarities with that guessing game. Vroom and Yetton believe that a leader can decide what the best style of leadership is for the specific situation in which they find themselves. The leader does this by asking a series of questions whose answers determine that best style. Instead of numbers, what Vroom and Yetton "have in their heads" is a set of the following leadership styles: 
1 - authoritarian - where the leader makes the decision alone. 
2 - consultative - where the leader makes the decision after getting suggestions from the rest of the group. 
3 - group - where the leader and the group make the decision together. 
4 - delegative - where the group makes the decision without the leader. 
Rather than the range of numbers, the questions one asks serve to narrow down the type of leadership to that which best fits the situation. These are the questions the leader asks: 
1 - Is the quality of the decision important? 
2 - Does the leader have sufficient information to make a high quality decision? 
3 - Does the group have sufficient information to make a high quality decision? 
4 - Is the information needed to make the decision readably available? 
5 - Is it important whether the group will accept the decision? 
6 - If the leader makes the decision alone, would it be accepted by the group? 
7 - Can the group be trusted to base their own decision on what is best for the organization? 
8 - Is conflict among the group members about the decision likely? 
Vroom and Yetton's book includes charts that show which style of leadership they believe to be best depending on how the questions are answered. For example, if you answer yes to questions 1, 3, 5, and 7, and no to questions 2, 4, and 6, you will choose the "group" style of leadership. (Note that you did not ask question 8. That is because not every question always has to be asked to determine the best leadership style for the situation.) If you change your answer to question 7 to no, then the "consultative" style will be chosen instead. We have not included the charts here; the interested reader can find them in Vroom and Yetton's book. 
It is important to remember that the charts are based on Vroom and Yetton's opinions about which style works best in which situation. They claim to have based their opinions on the best available research. Although we trust this claim, research has testing their charts has only had mixed success. Therefore, as with Hersey and Blanchard, it is unclear how accurate their theory is. 

Selecting a Group Leader
As we have discussed, the style and situational perspective leads to extremely useful approaches to leadership. These approaches shows us the different ways in which leaders can lead groups. They also give us suggestions about when each style must be the most successful. 
Neither approach, however, addresses the problem of leadership selection. How can we choose the best person to perform task leadership functions? The contingency approach to leadership has been able to provide some insight into this problem. It is influenced by all three of the approaches that we have covered so far. We shall examine this point of view in the next section. 

THE CONTINGENCY APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP
The trait approach was based on the idea that leadership can be predicted by considering the impact of one variable, the personality of the leader. The style approach was also based on the idea that leadership can be explained through the effect of one variable, the manner by which the leader leads. The situational approach was likewise based on the idea that the style that a leader should adopt is based on one variable, the situation in which the leader is in. 
The contingency approach to leadership is based on the idea that scientists can account for leadership by examining the ways in which two or more variables work together to determine leadership. As we have discussed, the various earlier approaches were unsuccessful in describing how leadership works. In contrast, there is some reason to believe that considering the impact of multiple variables simultaneously may lead to some success. 
The most well known example of a contingency perspective toward leadership is Fiedler's "contingency theory" (1964, 1978). Fiedler's work involved not only the relationship between trait and situation, but also style variables. He thus incorporated into his theory all of the various approaches that we have discussed. 
In the following section, we will describe Fiedler's theory in detail. We shall begin with his proposed leadership trait and its effect on leadership style. We will then turn to his typology of situations. We shall finish our discussion of Fiedler's work by examining his view concerning the manner in which trait and situation interact. 
Leader Trait - LPC
Fiedler devised a test that he used to help him determine what he could consider a leadership trait. Imagine that you are taking this test. You are given a questionnaire with the following opening instructions: 
Think of all the people you have ever known or with whom you have worked. Describe the one person with whom it has been the most difficult to work. In other words, think of the person who has been your least preferred coworker. In order to describe the person, rate him or her on a scale of 8 (positive side) to 1 (negative side) on the following pairs of items: 

pleasant/unpleasant	friendly/unfriendly	
accepting/rejecting	relaxed/tense	
close/distant	warm/cold	
supportive/hostile	interesting/boring	
harmonious/quarrelsome	cheerful/gloomy	
open/guarded	loyal/backbiting	
trustworthy/untrustworthy	considerate/inconsiderate	
nice/nasty	agreeable/disagreeable	
sincere/insincere	kind/unkind	
According to Fiedler, your answers to this questionnaire indicate the degree to which you possess a certain trait. For want of a better name, Fiedler called this permanent characteristic the "Least Preferred Coworker" trait. Scientists call it "LPC" for short. What is this characteristic? Fiedler would not necessarily agree with our interpretation of LPC, but the following discussion reveals how we believe LPC functions. 
"High" LPC score. Suppose your answers on the questionnaire averaged 6 or higher on each item. This would give you a total score of at least 108 out of a possible total score of 144. With this high score, Fiedler would say that you are a "high" LPC person. What does this mean? As you recall, Fiedler's questionnaire asked you to describe the person you would least like to have as a coworker. A high score on this questionnaire means that you have judged this "least preferred coworker" to be, nevertheless, a pleasant, friendly individual. The evaluation may seem a bit of an inconsistency on your part. 
However, what you have done is come to two separate conclusions about the person. On the one hand, you do not want to work with him or her. You have made a negative task-oriented judgment of the person. On the other hand, you think the person is relaxed, friendly, and so on. You have thereby made a positive social judgment of this person. Apparently, you are able to differentiate between how this least preferred coworker is as a worker and how he or she is as a person. In essence, you are able to separate the task and social aspects of the people around you. This ability makes you a high LPC person. 

"Low" LPC score. In contrast, suppose your answers on each item on the questionnaire averaged 3 or lower. This would give you a low score, of only 54 at most, with 18 points being the lowest possible outcome. In this case you have judged your least preferred coworker to be an unfriendly, unpleasant person. This means that you give your coworker a negative rating for both task-oriented and social skills. The implication is that you cannot differentiate between the person's abilities as a worker and his or her skills as a person. You appear to be unable to separate the task and social aspects of people. This makes you a "low" LPC person. 

LPC and leadership. How does the LPC trait affect a person in a leadership position? It appears that LPC has an influence on the leadership style that the person prefers to use. High LPC leaders like to follow a style that is maintenance oriented. When they feel pressured, they try to relieve the pressure by improving social relationships. 
Low LPC leaders, on the other hand, prefer a task-oriented style. They receive their greatest satisfaction from the successful performance of a work assignment. When they feel pressure, they respond by working harder on the task than they had previously. In comparison with high LPC leaders, Fiedler has found that low LPC people tend to be more task-oriented during group discussion. They ask for and give more suggestions, demand greater member participation, and make negatively toned statements more often. The low LPC leaders also tend to be more active. They talk and interrupt more frequently and control the conversation to a greater degree than high LPC people do. 
Finally, there is a third possible type of LPC trait. This is medium LPC. Medium LPC people have scores from each questionnaire item that average between 3 and 6, with total points ranging from 54 to 108. Fiedler finds that these people are socially independent. They are unconcerned with other people's evaluations of them and uninterested in leadership. Beyond identifying that they can exist, Fiedler ignores medium LPC people in his leadership theory. 

Group Situation
One of the strong points of Fiedler's theory is the way in which he views the group situation. He does not present an unorganized list of possible circumstances. Instead, Fiedler has turned his attention to the features that make up a circumstance. This viewpoint has led to an orderly typology of group situations. 
In general, Fiedler classifies situations according to their favorableness to a group leader. Different features within the circumstance can increase or decrease how favorable the circumstance is for a leader. Favorableness is the extent to which a leader can make decisions and take actions in his or her group. Further, it is the degree to which a leader can be confident these decisions and actions will lead to the outcomes that he or she intended. 
Specifically, Fiedler defines situations in terms of the following three features: 

1. Leader-member relations. This is the most important feature. Fiedler defines it as the degree to which a leader has the support and loyalty of the other group members. He categorizes this feature as existing only at either end of the continuum. The continuum runs from "good" to "bad." If relations are good, the leader is confident that group members will follow his or her directions. According to our definition above of "favorableness," good relations are favorable to the leader. If relations are bad, a leader lacks confidence. This is unfavorable for him or her. 

2. Task structure. This feature is half as important as leader-member relations. Fiedler defines it as the extent to which the group can clearly specify the requirements for completing the task. The task structure also exists along a continuum. "Clear" is at one end of the continuum, and "unclear" is at the other end. A task structure is clear if the group members know the requirements for completing the task, if there is only one method for performing the task, if there is only one best solution, and if the group can verify whether a proposed solution is the best one. This is a favorable structure for leaders. In contrast, the task structure is unclear if the group members do not know the requirements for completing the task, if there is more than one method for performing the task, if there may be many "best" solutions, and if the group cannot verify which proposal is the best. Such a situation is unfavorable for a leader. 

3. Position power. This feature is half as significant for a group situation as task structure is, and thus one-fourth as important as leader-member relations. Fiedler defines position power as the extent to which a leader has legitimacy in a group. A leader's legitimacy is measured by the degree to which the leader has a position that allows him or her to reward and punish the other group members. The continuum for this feature runs from "strong" to "weak." A strong level of position power is favorable for a leader, whereas a weak level is unfavorable. A leader has strong position power if he or she has legitimacy as part of an organizational chain of command, as in the military. Position power is weak if a leader does not have such legitimacy. 

Categorizing Group Situations by Feature. 

As you can see, Fiedler has proposed that the three features have varying degrees of importance relative to one another. His research supported this idea. A useful method for indicating their relative importance is to assign each a numerical weight. Using this scheme, leader-member relations receives a weight of four. Task structure receives a two, and position power gets a one. 
We can also categorize these features according to their degree of favorableness. Each has two favorableness ratings. For example, position power can be either strong, which is favorable, or weak, which is unfavorable. 
There are eight possible combinations of these different aspects of features. It follows from this that there are eight possible group situations. For instance, one of the eight combinations would be good leader-member relations, unclear task structure, and strong position power. There are seven other possible combinations. 
Using our numbering system, we can assign every circumstance the summed weight of its favorable features. By doing this, it is then possible for us to rank-order the situations according to their favorableness. The result is Fiedler's typology of group situations. Table 10.5 summarizes this classification system. 

Table 10.5	Fiedler's Typology of Group Situations	
Situation	Leader-Member Relations	Task Structure	Position Power	Favorableness	
I	Good (4)	Clear (2)	Strong (1)	Very High (7)	
II	Good (4)	Clear (2)	Weak	High (6)	
III	Good (4)	Unclear	Strong (1)	High (5)	
IV	Good (4)	Unclear	Weak	Medium (4)	
V	Bad	Clear (2)	Strong (1)	Medium (3)	
VI	Bad	Clear (2)	Weak	Low (2)	
VII	Bad	Unclear	Strong (1)	Low (1)	
VII	Bad	Unclear	Weak	Very Low (0)	

Trait/Situation Relationship
Earlier, we described how scientists conducted research using the trait approach to leadership. The experimenters correlated measurements of traits with measurements of leadership effectiveness. The results were various correlation coefficients. These researchers hoped to find a strong relationship between certain traits and leadership capability. As you can recall, they failed to find this relationship. 
Fiedler likewise correlated a trait measurement with a measurement of leader effectiveness, but he used different methods. His experiments involved hundreds of business and military groups and sports teams. The trait measurement that Fiedler used was the leader's LPC score. He then measured leadership effectiveness by rating how well the various groups performed their tasks. 
There was a significant difference between Fiedler's research methods and the studies that had failed earlier. Fiedler classified each group into one of the eight possible circumstances that his typology distinguished. He was thus able to calculate a separate trait/performance correlation for each possible situation. In his 1964 article, he reported the results of his first decade of research. As you will recall, any correlation coefficient above .3 may have some practical value. Table 10.6 shows the correlations Fiedler found among the different situations. 

Table 10.6	Fiedler's Findings	
Situation	Correlation	Situation	Correlation	
I	-.52	V	.42	
II	-.58	VI	not studied	
III	-.41	VII	.05	
IV	.47	VIII	-.43	
]Findings of Fiedler's Research 

In Situations I, II, III, and VIII there is a considerable negative correlation between leader LPC scores and group performance. This means that in these circumstances group performance goes up as leader LPC goes down. As you can note from the earlier table listing favorableness rankings, Situations I, II, and III are all generally very favorable for leaders. In contrast, Situation VIII received a very low favorableness ranking. Despite these differences, all four circumstances are most effective when they have a low LPC leader. 
Situations IV and V, on the other hand, have a considerable positive correlation between leader LPC and group performance. These circumstances have medium favorableness rankings. As leader LPC increases in these situations, performance goes up. Hence, people in Situations IV and V do best with high LPC leaders. Finally, there appears to be no relationship between leader LPC and group outcome in Situation VII. The correlation was a statistically insignificant .05. With Situation VI, Fiedler could not find enough groups to get any meaningful results. 
In a nutshell, Fiedler's research found that low LPC leaders are most effective in situations that either highly favor the leader or do not favor him or her very much. In contrast, high LPC leaders are best in circumstances that are of medium favorableness. This is an example of two variables working together. The effectiveness of a leader depends on the extent to which the leader's LPC fits the group situation. This dependency means that neither high nor low LPC leaders are best suited for all situations. Each leader type does well in some circumstances and poorly in others. Similarly, no one situation leads to the best group performance. Any circumstance can lead to a successful group outcome if the group has the right type of leader. Fiedler proposed that we should keep in mind this dependency between leader LPC and group situation. If we do, we can predict whether a group will perform its task well. 

Explanations
Scientists are never satisfied with recording research findings; they also wish to explain them. We will attempt to explain why Fiedler obtained the results that he did. As with our description of LPC, it is not clear whether Fiedler himself would agree with our explanation. 
In circumstances of low favorableness, things are not going well at all for the group members. In this negative environment, the members need direction that is strongly task oriented to complete any work at all. Low LPC leaders are best able to provide this task direction. 
In circumstances of medium favorableness, groups are fighting against mixed odds. Members require interpersonal support as they struggle to reach their goal. High LPC leaders can provide this social support. 
Circumstances that highly favor the leader are somewhat different from these two situations. In circumstances of high favorableness, things are going well for the group. We must assume that when things are going well the members of a group prefer to be left alone to do their work. They do not need as much from their leader. They do not need either task direction or social support. These are circumstances of high favorableness for the group, but they can cause problems for some leaders. Despite the group's success, a high LPC leader will continue to try to provide social support for members; yet members would prefer to be left alone. They respond negatively when the high LPC leader continues attempts to give social support. 
The low LPC leader will respond differently in this type of situation. He or she would be very satisfied with a successful group and would see no reason to provide any more task direction. Therefore, this leader will leave the group alone. As we have stated, this is exactly what the group in a highly favorable situation wants. As a result, the members will respond positively to the low LPC leader. 
This proposal would explain why members in a highly favorable situation respond more positively to a low LPC leader than to a high LPC leader. The low LPC leader leaves them alone. The high LPC leader continues trying to provide them with unnecessary social support. 

Implications of Fiedler's Theory 

Assigned leaders in organizations. In practice, Fiedler's theory has some straightforward implications. Organizations that need to assign leaders to groups can look at his theory. One option organizations have, using his idea, is to train leaders to employ whichever style best suits their group's situation. The leaders could strive to use a laissez-faire style when favorableness is high, a social-oriented style in medium-favorableness situations, and a task-oriented technique when favorableness is low. However, Fiedler thinks that training leaders to employ styles that are inconsistent with their personal tendencies, as indicated by their LPC scores, is difficult. A second option, which Fiedler prefers, is that organizations test potential leaders to discover their LPC scores; then the organization can place leaders in situations in which the style they naturally prefer is best. Leadership training should only include instruction on how to use one's natural style better. 

The effects of leader experience on group performance. Fiedler's theory also has some more subtle implications for assigned leadership. For example, let us examine the factor of leader experience. Most of us probably assume that a leader's past experience is positively related to group performance. However, Fiedler reviewed research that showed a surprising -.12 correlation between these two variables. This basically nonexistent relationship no doubt seems very odd to most people. However, it was no surprise for Fiedler. How does Fiedler recognize that leader experience can sometimes harm group performance? 
First of all, we must assume that experience gives leaders increased ability to predict the outcomes of their decisions and actions. This ties into Fiedler's idea of favorableness. As you recall, he rates the favorableness of a situation by how well a leader is able to predict the outcomes of his or her decisions and actions. For example, Joyce is in a very favorable circumstance as the leader of a hiking group because she knows the right decisions, and she knows that her group will follow her. She is confident in the outcome when she tells her group of hikers, "Go up that path to the right and you will see a beautiful view of the waterfall." 
Following this line of thought, Fiedler says that leader experience increases a situation's favorableness. The favorableness of a circumstance can go from low to medium or from medium to high. These fluctuations change group situations. What does this mean for the group? The answer is that a leader's effectiveness can both increase and decrease when a group situation changes. A leader's effectiveness, in turn, influences group performance. 
Let us consider the example of a high LPC leader in a situation of low favorableness. As the leader gains experience, the situation changes into one of medium favorableness. As we have just discussed, high LPC people are most effective in circumstances of medium favorableness. Therefore, this changed group will no doubt do rather well with the high LPC leader. In a similar fashion, in a situation of medium favorableness, a low LPC leader's experience would raise the favorableness to high. This will help the low LPC leader become increasingly effective for the group. 
However, other situations are different. There are times when increasing a situation's favorableness can harm a leader's effectiveness. For example, a low LPC person in a circumstance of low favorableness should be a good leader for the group. Experience begins to work on the situation, however, and raises it to one of medium favorableness. As you recall, a low LPC person is not the best leader for medium favorableness. Hence, experience has harmed the effectiveness of the low LPC leader in this group. Another example is the high LPC leader who starts to work with a group in a situation of medium favorableness, in which he or she is an effective leader. However, as the situation's favorableness changes to a high level, the high LPC person is no longer the best kind of leader for the group. 
Therefore, Fiedler finds that leader experience, situation, and leader LPC are three variables that work together to determine leader effectiveness. This, in turn, affects group performance. Whether experience will help a leader depends on the type of leader and the situation. 

Short-term versus long-term group performance. There are further implications of the relationship between experience and leader LPC. Consider the effect that the association can have on short-term versus long-term group performance. A low LPC leader should get good immediate results in an unfavorable situation. However, if experience changes the situation to medium favorableness, in the long term the group's performance will deteriorate. An organization should keep this idea in mind. If it can afford to sacrifice short-term results, it should assign a high LPC leader to a group in a situation of low favorableness. Things will not go very well in the beginning, but the organization should receive long-term benefits as the high LPC leader gains experience. 
Another option for an organization is to assign a low LPC person to a situation of low favorableness. The group will do well. When the group gets itself back on its feet, the organization can replace the leader with a high LPC person. This is common practice in many organizations. They employ a few low LPC leaders on temporary assignments. They send these task-oriented leaders to sections that are doing poorly and wait until they have succeeded in turning the sections around. The low LPC people are then reassigned. 

Evaluating Fiedler's Theory
Fiedler's contingency theory has been the object of severe negative criticism over the years. Some of this criticism is justified. In this section, we shall describe a few of the reactions to Fiedler's theory. We will organize our discussion of these criticisms consistently with the way in which we organized our description of the theory. 

Trait. Critics have questioned the use of the LPC measurement scale. They have done so with good reason. As you recall, high LPC leaders are able to separate the task and social management aspects of their least preferred coworker. In contrast, low LPC people cannot make this separation. Does Fiedler's questionnaire accurately reflect whether a person has the ability that high LPC people should have? 
Let us consider an example that may show the difficulties with Fiedler's technique for rating LPC. Janet is able to separate the task and social aspects of the people around her. However, Janet's least preferred coworker, Dave, is not only a poor worker, but also an unfriendly, unpleasant person. Janet fills out the LPC scale and accurately portrays Dave as unfriendly, unpleasant, and so on. The test will then inaccurately classify Janet as a low LPC person. 
In general, the LPC test implicitly assumes that the least preferred coworker is actually a pleasant person. It further assumes that the high LPC person recognizes this fact, whereas the low LPC person does not. These implied assumptions are untenable. The least preferred coworker may, in fact, be a rather unpleasant person generally. Criticisms of Fiedler's LPC test may raise valid questions concerning his LPC scoring technique. 

Situation. First, critics have claimed that Fiedler's view of situations is oversimplified. They say that three features are not enough to define situations and that situations actually have far more than three features. Fiedler accepts this criticism to some extent. However, he also defended his classification system by reminding us that scientists must make generalizations in order to say anything useful. He further states that any generalization will be oversimplified in some way. 
To persuade us that their criticisms are justified, the doubting scientists must show that Fiedler's view of situations is oversimplified to the extent that it seriously misinterprets "real life." However, the strength of Fiedler's research results suggests that he is tapping into something "real," and no researcher has truly shown that this is not the case. 
Second, others have claimed that Fiedler's ordering of the importance of the three situation features is arbitrary. Remember that Fiedler places leader-member relations first in importance and places position power last. It is true that at the beginning of his work Fiedler used arbitrary rankings. However, in 1978, Fiedler presented research evidence that supported his rank-ordering of the features. 
Third, scientists have looked at the correlation coefficients of the three factors and found cause for concern. The three must be uncorrelated for us to consider them totally different features of a situation. If two variables are highly correlated, they actually measure the same thing. Scientists have found that "leader-member relations" is unrelated to "position power." There is a coefficient of only -.09 between these two features. In addition, "leader-member relations" and "task structure" are unrelated, with a coefficient of .03. 
However, it turns out that position power and task structure are strongly and positively correlated, with a coefficient of .75. If position power and task structure are this highly correlated, it may be that they both measure the same thing in a group. If so, situations have only two features, not three. In turn, there are only four, not eight, types of situations. This would mean that Fiedler's theory is more complex at the moment than it needs to be. This is a cause for real concern. 

Task/situation relationship. First, scientists have questioned whether all of Fiedler's experiments have shown a correlation between leader LPC and group performance. In Table 10.6, we reported LPC/group performance correlations from Fiedler's first decade of research. He reported this summary of his work in a 1964 review of his studies. However, Graen et al. reviewed the next five years of Fiedler's work in a report they published in 1970. In their findings, they state that leader LPC/group performance correlations were much lower. This cast doubt on Fiedler's theory. 
In 1978, Fiedler responded to this criticism in another review of his own. He claimed that his post-1964 results only differed randomly from his findings prior to 1964. He stated that his work still supported his theory. Peters, Hartke, and Pohlmann came out with a more recent and sophisticated review of Fiedler's work in 1985. Their review came out in general support of Fiedler but found enough anomalies to conclude that contingency theory is incomplete. They believed that scientists need to consider other factors in order to create a complete hypothesis. 

General Conclusions: Contingency Theory 

It should be clear that Fiedler's contingency theory has several problems. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of research that supports his proposal. In other words, despite its problems, the theory works fairly well. Nonetheless, it has enough problems to warrant alternative theories. 
Since Fiedler's work, several other contingency theories of leadership have been proposed. These theorists tend to propose that situational factors and characteristics of the group members determine the circumstance under which different leadership styles are best. A good review of some important alternatives to Fiedler can be found in Yukl (1981). 

General Conclusions
The trait, style, situational, and contingency approaches to group leadership all have noteworthy implications for the practice of leadership. The trait approach describes how a person's personality may help determine whether other group members see that person as a leader. The style approach explains the effect that the way in which the leader leads has on a group. The situational approach accounts for when a leader should use one style rather than another. The contingency theory is concerned with how leadership traits and styles can effect how successful a leader will be in differing group situations. 
However, we can see much room for improvement in all of these approaches. The trait approach was unsuccessful in showing what type of person would make a good leader. The style approach erred by presuming that a particular style would always be best. The situational approach attempted to fix this error, but the situational theories have not been supported by research studies. Although contingency theory is our most sophisticated and successful theory of leadership, we have just discussed many problems that face it. 
Notions such as the trait and style views were rather simplistic. In comparison with these earlier approaches, we have obviously come a long way. Nevertheless, it is equally obvious that we still have a long way to go. There is still much to learn before we can have a really good understanding of how leadership works. 
One thing missing from these theories is any serious consideration of the role played by communication in leadership. In the next chapter, we will turn our attention to approaches to leadership in which communication is critical. As we shall see, including communication in our theories allows us to come to a greater understanding of how group leadership works. 

SUMMARY
We can approach the concept of leadership from any of the perspectives that small-group researchers use, such as the relational perspective. Each of these viewpoints defines leadership in a different way. However, in this book, we have not chosen one specific definition. Instead, we keep all of the perspectives in mind as we examine the question of leadership. Each perspective has its own definition of leadership, but only some viewpoints actually have had an impact on the study of the topic. What researchers have done is to propose different approaches to the study of leadership. In this chapter, we have examined four approaches that have developed in a roughly sequential order in history. 
In the beginning, some scientists believed that certain people had special qualities that would cause them to assume leadership positions in any situation. This was the trait approach to leadership. Researchers attempted to find specific characteristics that distinguished leaders from other group members. They were not able to do so. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence that the trait approach is flawed. Studies have shown that leadership ability differs among tasks. Thus, we cannot believe that leaders are consistent across different circumstances. However, traits do appear to influence group members' perception of who should lead. Certain traits are associated with leadership in the minds of group members. These perceptions are consistent across situations. 
Later, scientists attempted to evaluate the style that leaders use in groups. This was the style approach to the study of leadership. Lewin proposed three styles: democratic, authoritarian, and laissez faire. He provided evidence that the democratic leadership style leads to higher quality work, more cohesive groups, and more satisfied members than the other two styles. However, other studies have shown that there can be advantages with the authoritarian style also. It now appears that neither style is the "best." Each is better in different circumstances. 
Other researchers distinguished between task and maintenance styles of leadership. One group of researchers working at Ohio State University found that group members' answers to questionnaires about their leaders revealed two important factors, consideration and initiation of structure. Blake and Mouton followed on the Ohio State work by proposing that leaders differ in the extent to which they are both task oriented and maintenance oriented. Thus, different leaders have different leadership styles. Both the Ohio State group and Blake and Mouton believed that the ideal leader is highly concerned with both task and maintenance issues in any group situation. However, there is good reason to believe that this belief is wrong. 
In response to this problem, the situational approach has attempted to determine which style of leadership is best in which situation. Hersey and Blanchard argued that leadership style should be based on the degree of independence exhibited by the members of the group. Vroom and Yetton developed a table for determining which style of leadership is best given the answers to eight questions about the group situation. Unfortunately, research has not provided strong support for either of these approaches. 
Fiedler developed the contingency theory of leadership. He presented data showing that leadership effectiveness is a product of the relationship between a certain leader trait and different group situations. The leader trait Fiedler examined consists of the ability to distinguish between two aspects of someone's personality. The two aspects are how attractive an individual is as a worker and how attractive he or she is as a person. Fiedler had leaders answer a questionnaire about their least preferred coworker, or LPC, in order to discover the extent to which they could distinguish between these two aspects. High LPC leaders have a high ability to make this distinction. In contrast, low LPC people cannot distinguish between the aspects very well. High LPC leaders tend to be socially oriented and low LPC people are usually task oriented. 
Fiedler rank-ordered group situations by how favorable they are to the group leader. Situation favorableness is a function of three factors. These factors are the relationship between leader and group members, the clarity of the task, and the extent to which organizational structure gives the leaders power over group members. Research has shown that low LPC leaders, who tend to be task oriented, are most effective when favorableness is either rather high or rather low. In contrast, high LPC leaders, who usually are socially oriented people, are most effective when the level of favorableness is medium. 
Fiedler's contingency theory has been the most successful approach to leadership. However, even it suffers from several problems and weaknesses.