Page 196 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

Leading Small Groups: Theoretical Perspectives 179

directing all verbal interaction, and giving orders (“Here’s how I’ve structured your task.
First, you will . . .”). They ask fewer questions but answer more than democratic leaders
and make more attempts to coerce but fewer attempts to get others to participate. 41
Research findings have been consistent about the effects of leadership style on
group output. Democratically led groups are generally more satisfied than autocrat-
42
ically led groups in U.S. culture. Autocratic groups often work harder in the presence
of the leader, but they also experience more incidents of aggressiveness and apathy.
Democratic groups whose leaders provide some structure and coordination are better
problem solvers and their members are more satisfied than those in laissez-faire
groups without structure. Research continues into the complex relationship among
leadership style, satisfaction, and productivity. One meta-analysis found a correlation
43
between style and productivity only when the type of task was taken into account.
Democratic leadership is more productive in natural settings and, in laboratory set-
tings, seems to produce higher productivity on moderately or highly complex tasks.
Democratic leadership and satisfaction are not always linked. Members’ satisfac-
44
tion depends on a number of moderating factors. First, the relationship is stronger in
artificial laboratory groups than bona fide groups. Second, it is stronger in larger
groups, perhaps because inviting member participation counteracts the reduced cohe-
siveness of larger size. Finally, there is a sex link. Men in bona fide groups prefer auto-
cratic leadership, but men in laboratory groups prefer democratic leadership. This
occurs perhaps because artificial groups are composed of college students with more
liberal views of what is appropriate leadership, whereas men in the work world are used
to more directive leadership. Women prefer democratic groups regardless of setting.
Satisfaction with leadership style is highly culture-dependent. For instance, an
autocratic style will be preferred in cultures with high power distance, such as Mexico,
the Philippines, and India. Similarly, cultures that demonstrate a stereotypically
45
masculine orientation, including Japan, Austria, and Venezuela, would likewise prefer
autocratic leadership.
The issue with styles approaches to leadership is that they oversimplify the com-
plexities of groups as open systems. In the United States a leadership style that pro-
vides some degree of structure appears to be the most desirable for both productivity
and satisfaction, but several contingent factors (including cultural values) affect how
much structure and control a particular group seems to need. This includes situa-
tional factors that are out of any leader’s control (e.g., military officers in the field)—
there simply is no one style best for the complex situations faced by leaders. Even
46
Jennifer, designated leader of the advertising team in our opening story, who typically
engages in a controlling leadership style, finds herself adjusting to the situation and to
the peculiarities she discovers in each new employee.

Contemporary Approaches to Leadership

Contemporary approaches to studying leadership acknowledge that leadership is a
complex process influenced by several factors. These approaches focus on the entire
group as a system; leadership is more complex than zeroing in on any one person’s
traits or a one-size-fits-all communication style. These approaches examine critical
functions of leadership, situational contingencies calling for particular leadership

gal37018_ch07_169_196.indd 179 3/28/18 12:36 PM