LEADERSHIP IN RELATION TO GROUP EFFECTIVENESS 



477 



Effective Leader-Follower 

 Relationships 



The discussion of other factors affecting 

 morale pointed to many aspects of leader- 

 follower relationships having probable im- 

 portance for effective group functioning. 

 Here it may be well to consider the question 

 of potentially fruitful approaches to an en- 

 larged understanding of these relationships. 



As in the case of other factors influencing 

 morale, the determination of effective leader- 

 ship patterns can be approached by empirical 

 or ex post facto procedures, as in the studies 

 by Jennings (56), or experimentally, as in 

 the studies of Lippitt (67) and Lewin, Lip- 

 pitt, and White (66). Both types of ap- 

 proach are useful, although in the latter 

 case a possible question arises as to the 

 adequacy of experimental leaders merely act- 

 ing in predetermined ways, especially when 

 they may have preconceptions as to the 

 most effective method. At present, how- 

 ever, we know so little about leadership proc- 

 esses that extensive empirical observation 

 would seem desirable. This can serve to de- 

 velop hypotheses which may then be tested 

 by more rigorous experimental means where 

 feasible. 



Another question concerns general meth- 

 ods of observation. The study of effective 

 leadership may be carried out through direct 

 observation of leader-follower interaction, as 

 in the studies first mentioned, or circuitously, 

 in terms of what group members say about 

 leadership. Examples of the latter are 

 found in the use by the Air Force (24) of 

 anecdotes about leader behavior, and of less 

 specific descriptions by various investi- 

 gators (92, 91, 43). Reactions of group 

 members are important to a full description, 

 but they are not sufficient. Individuals may 

 be biased, and all members even of a small 

 group may overlook important aspects of 

 what has happened (52). Direct observa- 

 tion encounters practical difficulties, es- 

 pecially in organized groups of adults, but 

 these difficulties must somehow be overcome 



if rapid progress is to be made in the study 

 of leadership behavior. 



AVhat specific concepts and techniques of- 

 fer promise in the analysis of leader-follower 

 interaction? A considerable amount of re- 

 cent thinking revolves about broad patterns 

 or types of leader-follower relationships, 

 often represented in dichotomized form, such 

 as democratic vs. authoritarian (66, 67) 

 leadership vs. domination (80), or integrative 

 vs. dominative behavior (2). Along some- 

 what similar lines, Knickerbocker (59) has 

 discussed four general patterns which are 

 prevalent or possible in industry— force, pa- 

 ternalism, bargaining, and mutual means — 

 and has suggested certain hypotheses to ac- 

 count for their apparent relative effective- 

 ness. Basically he assumes — and the same 

 assumptions seem implicit in the above writ- 

 ers — that maximum productivity is secured 

 where attainment of organizational objec- 

 tives is mutually perceived by followers and 

 leaders as means to the satisfaction of their 

 respective needs, and that the problem for 

 the leader is to create conditions which make 

 this possible. These considerations afford 

 a general framework for investigation of 

 leadership, but if analysis in terms of types 

 or broad patterns is to be useful, they need 

 considerably more explicit definition and on 

 a more definitely empirical basis. 



Another line of inquiry which appears 

 highly promising involves the empirical anal- 

 ysis of informal roles and channels of com- 

 munication to and from the leader. For 

 example, Benne and Sheats (12) have class- 

 ified and discussed the various roles which 

 the nominal leader and other members may 

 assume from time to time in discussion 

 groups. A somewhat different but related 

 approach has been reported by Stogdill and 

 Shartle (87), who attempt in Naval groups 

 to analyze the leader's interpersonal rela- 

 tions in terms of such variables as work 

 patterns, personal contacts, delegation of 

 authority, and methods of working with 

 staff. The problem of informal communi- 

 cation systems developing within industrial 



