Page 198 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

Leading Small Groups: Theoretical Perspectives 181

members of continuing small groups what they expected of designated leaders.
50
Members expected different behaviors depending on the group’s focus, although a
moderate degree of team spirit was expected for all types of groups. Griffin also found
that the amount of structuring and directive behavior expected from supervisors
51
depended on subordinates’ growth needs. People with high growth needs (i.e., who
enjoy challenging jobs) preferred participative, considerate supervisors, whereas
employees with lower growth needs preferred more autocratic leadership. Downs and
52
Pickett also examined contingencies of leader style and member needs. Groups of
participants with high social needs were most productive with task-oriented proce-
dural leaders and least productive with no designated leader. Groups of people low on
interpersonal needs did equally well with designated leaders who provided task struc-
turing only, both task structuring and socioemotional leadership, and with no desig-
nated leader. Groups with some members high and some low in interpersonal needs
performed somewhat better without a designated leader.
Complex relationships have been found among member needs, leadership style,
and member satisfaction, supporting the general contingency hypothesis of leadership
in small discussion groups. Two popular leadership contingency models have emerged,
each with opposing views of leader adaptability. Fiedler’s contingency model centers
on three factors that determine how a leader should act: leader-member relations (good
or poor); task structure (structured or unstructured); and strength of the leader’s posi-
53
tion, or legitimate, power (strong or weak). However, this model proposes that there
are limits to leaders’ abilities to adapt; in other words, people are relatively inflexible
and have leadership styles they prefer to use. This approach has been more difficult to
use in understanding group leadership than the more popular model we turn to now.

Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Model Hersey and Blanchard’s contingency
model rests on the assumption that group members are flexible enough to adapt their
54
behavior to meet the needs of any group they may find themselves in. Leadership
behaviors can be located along two dimensions, relationship orientation (giving socio-
emotional support) and task orientation (coordination efforts, instructions, direction,
and so forth). A leader can be high on one, both, or neither dimension (see
Figure 7.2). However, whether a leader is effective depends on the ability to adapt to
the needs of the members at all points during the life of the group. For instance, a new
group of inexperienced members who may be unwilling, may be unable, or may sim-
ply not have the information to complete the task on their own is in low readiness. In
this case, directing (low relationship and high task) may be an effective leadership
style. Through close supervision and direction, group members can improve their
readiness; the leader adds in relationship behaviors to exhibit a supporting style. As
members need less direction about the task, the leader can focus on the relationships
among members. Supporting (high relationship and low task) styles recognize a high
level of readiness in members, with the leader able to facilitate shared responsibility
for the group. Any group member may be supported in performing leadership behav-
iors. The fully ready group is one in which members are both able and willing to per-
form and need little direction and encouragement. In such groups, leaders can shift to
a delegating (low relationship and low task) style in which responsibility is turned over
to the group as a whole.

gal37018_ch07_169_196.indd 181 3/28/18 12:36 PM