An experiment to study the influence of leadership styles on group behavior

Such leaders always clearly explain to people what needs to be done, by what time the task should be completed, and how exactly it needs to be completed. When making decisions, they practically do not take into account the point of view of other members of the group, which is why differences of opinion often occur between them and those who carry out orders. With this leadership style, people have almost no room for creativity in the decision-making process. If a leader abuses his power, then he is perceived as a person who loves to command and control, with dictatorial inclinations. Authoritarian leadership is most suitable for those cases when the leader is by far the most knowledgeable and qualified member of the team or the group does not have time to work out a solution. In addition, it is much more difficult to switch from an authoritarian style of leadership to a democratic one than from a democratic to authoritarian. ^[2]

Democratic leaders actively participate in group activities, allow other members to express their point of view, and offer them help and guidance. Communicating in a friendly tone, praise and censure are given in the form of advice. All members of the group participate in decision-making and are involved in the process, which can help increase their creativity. ^[2]

A leader with this style behaves passively, shifting all decisions to the shoulders of members of his group. This leadership style is believed to be the least effective. The leader does not cooperate with the group and does not give instructions, keeps aloof. Nevertheless, such leadership can be beneficial if all members of the group are highly qualified in some narrow area, but in most cases it leads to low motivation of team members and an unclear distribution of roles. ^[2]

The main experimental task was to establish how various types of leadership influence the execution of group actions. The experiment was conducted on a group of teenage boys 10-11 years old, who, under the guidance of adults, molded papier-mâché masks. The leaders of the three groups (they were adult leaders, not leaders spontaneously nominated from among children) showed a different leadership style and then the experimenters compared the effectiveness of the three groups. ^[3]

The groups conducted sociometric tests, with the help of which they established leaders , outsiders, friendly couples. Experimental work with all groups was carried out in the same room, so the influence of the external environment could not distort the results of the experiment. In addition, each group performed the same task. Each group was assigned a leader, who for 7 weeks carried out a given leadership style. After 7 weeks, another with a different style was appointed. Leaders did not work in the same group twice, but each conducted an experiment in all groups. Thus, the leadership style, and not the individual style of the experimenter, was the experimental variable.

During the experiment, observers were present in the room, who recorded:

• The number of acts of interaction between the group members and their leader, including directives, positive and negative reactions, special attention was paid to the refusal to fulfill the request or the order of the leader.
• Per-minute analysis of changes in the group structure was carried out: the activity of subgroups was recorded, it was established whether the activity of the group was caused by a leader or arose spontaneously, and the cohesion index of each subgroup was calculated.
• The accumulated number of significant actions of the subjects was recorded, as well as changes in the dynamics of the group as a whole.
• A continuous transcript of all conversations in the group was conducted. ^[four]

• Establishing the influence of leadership type on the dynamics of aggressive behavior in a group

A low level of aggressive behavior is characteristic of an authoritarian type of leadership. Liberation from authoritarian leadership and the transition to "connivance" and democracy causes a sharp increase in aggression, the level of which then decreases. The transition from “connivance” to democracy and authoritarianism reduces aggression. To study group reactions, the researchers used three types of test situations: the leader left the room, was late for the start of classes and, in his absence, the “stranger” came into the room and criticized his actions. Thus, the question was studied of how the intervention of the “alien” affects the level of aggressiveness. The experiment showed that the intervention of the “alien” leads to a sharp increase in aggression in the “conniving” and “democratic” groups. ^[four]

• With an authoritarian leadership style, it was discovered that the members of the group did not have space for creativity in the decision-making process.
• Under a democratic leadership style, children's productivity declined in quantitative terms than in teams led by an authoritarian leader, but their contribution was better. The members of the group were more motivated and involved in the process, which contributed to the manifestations of creativity.
• With an conniving leadership style, group members demanded orders and decisions from their leader, did not know how to work independently and were extremely reluctant and inefficient to work together. ^[2]

The experiment received the main criticism because of the ambiguous application of the terms. In the tradition of social psychology, the issue of leadership styles, rather than leadership styles, is investigated. The experiment lacks rigor to the use of these terms, which is typical for experiments on this topic ^[3] .

• Kleinman P. Psychology. People, concepts, experiments / P. Kleinman. - M.: Publishing House Mann, Ivanov and Ferber, 2012 .-- 272 p. ISBN 978-5-00-057590-1
• Andreeva G. M. Social Psychology. Textbook for higher education / G. M. Andreeva. - 5th ed., Rev. and add. - M .: Aspect Press, 2007 .-- 363 p. ISBN 978-5-7567-0274-3
• Batygin G. S. Lectures on the methodology of sociological research / G. S. Batygin. - M .: Aspect Press, 1995 .-- 249 p. I