University of iowa studies leadership styles

Lesson Four: Leadership Behaviors and their Ethical Implications

Lesson Three discussed three of the most prominent ethical theories, as well as their application to The Trolley Problem in order to assess relative consequences. Lesson Four will introduce some of the most prominent behavioral theories concerning leadership as well as their ethical implications.

Behavioral Theories

In Lesson Two, we discussed some of the early leadership research, which attempted to identify qualities that were always associated with effective leaders, and which were largely unsuccessful. However, subsequent to these efforts, researchers in the field then turned their focus to the types of behaviors that leaders exhibit, hoping that this work might reveal some patterns of successful perspectives, habits, etc. These studies were conducted at some of the finest universities across the country, and while there were some very general similarities in the results of many of the major studies, the implications varied from case to case. We will now examine each of these studies in greater detail in order to understand their findings and implications.

One brief preface is helpful here. The studies discussed below each varied in their research parameters, methodology, and findings. However, one factor that was fairly consistent throughout was the way in which leadership efficacy was defined. Generally, the studies discussed herein looked at leadership effectiveness with respect to two metrics: performance, or the productivity of the teams investigated in terms of the work they do (quality and quantity), and satisfaction, or the degree to which teams were happy performing work under their respective leaders. This is not an uncommon way of measuring efficacy (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001), and it goes without saying that both of these factors are quite relevant. Teams must be able to produce at an acceptable level, but if they aren’t also content with the circumstances of their work, then such teams aren’t likely to sustain performance for any extended period of time.

· University of Iowa Studies: One set of studies were conducted by researchers at the University of Iowa. The results of these studies concluded that all leaders adopted one of three different leadership styles: Autocratic, Democratic, and Laissez-Faire (Rafiq Awan & Mahmood, 2010). Autocratic leaders, as the name suggests, run their operations like dictators, making decisions unilaterally and seeking very little input or participation from followers. Democratic leaders, by contrast, adopt a very participative style of leadership, involving followers in all major decisions, either through a ‘notice and comment’ style dialogue before decisions are rendered, or through an informal voting-style procedure. Finally, “Laissez-Faire” is a French term that means to “let do” or to “let be”. It is commonly used in the phrase “Laissez-Faire Capitalism” to describe the American-style economy where government seldomly meddles in private sector affairs and generally leaves business and industry alone. Accordingly, Laissez-Faire leaders are those who are very “hands off” and do not typically involve themselves in the affairs of their teams unless absolute necessary. According to the University of Iowa studies, Democratic leaders were most likely to render high levels of both performance and satisfaction.

· University of Ohio Studies: Another set of studies was conducted by researchers at the University of Ohio. Instead of looking to classify leadership styles in terms of the Iowa taxonomy, these scholars measured leaders on two dimensions (Schriesheim & Bird, 1979). The first was “initiating structure”, or the ability of a leader to define roles and work within a group. The second was “consideration”, or the leader’s ability to foster trust and respect among members of a group. Note, at this juncture, that one of these dimensions is heavily-oriented toward the jobs themselves (initiating structure), and the other is just as heavily-oriented toward the people involved (consideration); this is important because similar distinctions can be observed in other studies discussed infra. Now, the Ohio Studies generally indicated that leaders who were most effective (i.e. generated positive levels of both performance and satisfaction) were those who were very adept with both initiating structure and consideration. In other words, both were necessary. However, the authors of these studies did note that situational factors had a significant influence on outcomes, and this is a concept which will be discussed in more detail in subsequent lessons.

· University of Michigan Studies: Yet another set of studies came out of the University of Michigan. In Michigan, researchers found a similar dichotomy of leadership abilities as in Ohio (Gregory Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2004). The Michigan Studies referred to the first dimension as “production-orientation”, or the extent to which the leaders display a focus on task accomplishment. The second dimension was called “employee-orientation”, or the extent to which leaders focus on nurturing personal relationships with followers. Now, one can see the obvious similarity mentioned earlier with respect to Ohio and Michigan in terms of the dimensions evaluated, but what was less similar between the two were the ultimate conclusions. Whereas Ohio researchers concluded that leaders who were highly talented in both dimensions were best at driving performance and satisfaction, the Michigan studies reported that leaders who were employee-focused and determined to build strong relationships with followers were most likely to achieve high levels of performance and satisfaction. In Michigan, the quality of “production-orientation” was benign insofar as leadership efficacy was concerned.

· Blake, Mouton, & Bidwell’s Managerial Grid: One final variety of the two-dimension job v. people framework came in the form of the Managerial Grid by Blake, Mouton, and Bidwell (1962). These authors took the two dimensions previously established in the Ohio and Michigan studies---which they relabeled “concern for production” and “concern for people”---and plotted them on a 9-point X/Y access to illustrate the implications of leaders who were either low in both, high in both, or higher in one than the other. The authors then plotted five points on this grid. Leaders who lack both dimensions (1,1) are described as “impoverished” and are predicted by the grid to fail in achieving performance or satisfaction. Leaders who are high in task concern but low in people concern (9,1) are called “task” managers and are predicted to achieve performance at the expense of satisfaction. Inversely, leaders who are low in task concern but high in people concern (1,9), are called “country club” managers; under these leaders, relationships and satisfaction are strong, but performance suffers. Then, there are leaders who exhibit moderate level of both task and people concern (5,5). These are called “middle-of-the-road” managers, and generally performance and satisfaction under these leaders are both acceptable, but not excelling. Finally, leaders who excel at both task and people concern (9,9) are called “team” managers, and the grid predicts these leaders will have the highest levels of both performance and satisfaction. In this sense, the authors of the Managerial Grid agree with the findings of the Ohio Studies; it takes a focus on both the job and the people in order to maximize results.

Ethical Implications

As with leadership qualities, while these various behavioral leadership theories make significant implications about the types of leader which will be most successful, they also raise questions about the ethics of leaders based on their leadership philosophies.

· University of Iowa Studies: The Iowa Studies say quite a bit about leaders with different dispositions concerning their own roles. Autocratic leaders may be effective, but if their conduct results in low employee morale and low levels of perceived respect or appreciation, then some ethics doctrines would suggest that this renders such a philosophy flawed. Democratic leaders may benefit from the good favor of employees who appreciate being included in team affairs, but what if such elaborate participatory paradigms stall the business to the point of threatening viability. Would it still be wise to afford employees a voice in everything if it means certain bankruptcy? Finally, do Laissez-Faire leaders shirk a duty of oversight and effort when they abstain from involvement in group affairs? If so, does this shortcoming render such leaders unethical? As usual, we wrestle with difficult questions.

· University of Ohio Studies, University of Michigan Studies, and Blake, Mouton, & Bidwell’s Managerial Grid: When considering the ethics of the theories from Ohio, Michigan, and the authors of the Managerial Grid, one must address the question of whether leaders who focus on the people they lead are any more or less ethical than those who focus on the job to be accomplished. If we reflect on our discussion in Lesson One supra and concede that morality is about promoting the wellbeing of humans and other living things, then the intuitive answer might be that leaders who focus more on people are more ethical. However, again, things are rarely this simple. As we’ve discussed more than once already, there are cases in which a focus on the job may actually render more benefit to followers than appeasing followers’ shortsighted desires. What people want is not always what they need, and so leaders must confront the difficult task of doing that which is best, and not necessarily that which is most popular.

Conclusion

In this lesson, we discussed some of the most prominent behavioral theories concerning leadership as well as their ethical implications. In Lesson Five we will discuss some modern concepts of ethics for businesses, including socially responsible investing, corporate social responsibility, and environmentalism.

References

Blake, R. R., Mouton, J. S., & Bidwell, A. C. (1962). Managerial grid. Advanced Management-Office Executive.

Gregory Stone, A., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant leadership: A difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(4), 349-361.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological bulletin, 127(3), 376.

Rafiq Awan, M., & Mahmood, K. (2010). Relationship among leadership style, organizational culture and employee commitment in university libraries. Library management, 31(4/5), 253-266.

Schriesheim, C. A., & Bird, B. J. (1979). Contributions of the Ohio State studies to the field of leadership. Journal of Management, 5(2), 135-145.

Lesson Four: Leadership Behaviors and their Ethical Implications

Lesson Three discussed three of the most prominent ethical theories, as well as their application

to The Trolley Problem in order to assess relative consequences. Lesson Four will introduce

some of the most prominent behavioral theories concerning leadersh

ip as well as their ethical

implications.

Behavioral Theories

In Lesson Two, we discussed some of the early leadership research, which attempted to identify

qualities that were always associated with effective leaders, and which were largely unsuccessful.

However, subsequent to these efforts, researchers in the field

then turned their focus to the types

of

behaviors

that leaders exhibit, hoping that this work might reveal some patterns of successful

perspectives, habits, etc. These studies were conducted at some of the finest universities across

the country, and while

there were some very general similarities in the results of many of the

major studies, the implications varied from case to case. We will now examine each of these

studies in greater detail in order to understand their findings and implications.

One bri

ef preface is helpful here. The studies discussed below each varied in their research

parameters, methodology, and findings. However, one factor that was fairly consistent

throughout was the way in which leadership efficacy was defined. Generally, the stud

ies

discussed herein looked at leadership effectiveness with respect to two metrics: performance, or

the productivity of the teams investigated in terms of the work they do (quality and quantity),

and satisfaction, or the degree to which teams were happy p

erforming work under their

respective leaders. This is not an uncommon way of measuring efficacy (Judge, Thoresen, Bono,

& Patton, 2001), and it goes without saying that both of these factors are quite relevant. Teams

must be able to produce at an acceptab

le level, but if they aren’t also content with the

circumstances of their work, then such teams aren’t likely to sustain performance for any

extended period of time.

·

University of Iowa Studies:

One set of studies were conducted by researchers at

the Univ

ersity of Iowa. The results of these studies concluded that all leaders

adopted one of three different leadership styles: Autocratic, Democratic, and Laissez

-

Faire (Rafiq Awan & Mahmood, 2010). Autocratic leaders, as the name suggests, run

their operations

like dictators, making decisions unilaterally and seeking very little

input or participation from followers. Democratic leaders, by contrast, adopt a very

participative style of leadership, involving followers in all major decisions, either

through a ‘not

ice and comment’ style dialogue before decisions are rendered, or

through an informal voting

-

style procedure. Finally, “Laissez

-

Faire” is a French term

that means to “let do” or to “let be”. It is commonly used in the phrase “Laissez

-

Faire Capitalism” to d

escribe the American

-

style economy where government

seldomly meddles in private sector affairs and generally leaves business and industry

alone. Accordingly, Laissez

-

Faire leaders are those who are very “hands off” and do

not typically involve themselves i

n the affairs of their teams unless absolute

necessary. According to the University of Iowa studies, Democratic leaders were

most likely to render high levels of both performance and satisfaction.

·

University of Ohio Studies:

Another set of studies was cond

ucted by researchers

at the University of Ohio. Instead of looking to classify leadership styles in terms of

the Iowa taxonomy, these scholars measured leaders on two dimensions

Lesson Four: Leadership Behaviors and their Ethical Implications

Lesson Three discussed three of the most prominent ethical theories, as well as their application

to The Trolley Problem in order to assess relative consequences. Lesson Four will introduce

some of the most prominent behavioral theories concerning leadership as well as their ethical

implications.

Behavioral Theories

In Lesson Two, we discussed some of the early leadership research, which attempted to identify

qualities that were always associated with effective leaders, and which were largely unsuccessful.

However, subsequent to these efforts, researchers in the field then turned their focus to the types

of behaviors that leaders exhibit, hoping that this work might reveal some patterns of successful

perspectives, habits, etc. These studies were conducted at some of the finest universities across

the country, and while there were some very general similarities in the results of many of the

major studies, the implications varied from case to case. We will now examine each of these

studies in greater detail in order to understand their findings and implications.

One brief preface is helpful here. The studies discussed below each varied in their research

parameters, methodology, and findings. However, one factor that was fairly consistent

throughout was the way in which leadership efficacy was defined. Generally, the studies

discussed herein looked at leadership effectiveness with respect to two metrics: performance, or

the productivity of the teams investigated in terms of the work they do (quality and quantity),

and satisfaction, or the degree to which teams were happy performing work under their

respective leaders. This is not an uncommon way of measuring efficacy (Judge, Thoresen, Bono,

& Patton, 2001), and it goes without saying that both of these factors are quite relevant. Teams

must be able to produce at an acceptable level, but if they aren’t also content with the

circumstances of their work, then such teams aren’t likely to sustain performance for any

extended period of time.

 University of Iowa Studies: One set of studies were conducted by researchers at

the University of Iowa. The results of these studies concluded that all leaders

adopted one of three different leadership styles: Autocratic, Democratic, and Laissez-

Faire (Rafiq Awan & Mahmood, 2010). Autocratic leaders, as the name suggests, run

their operations like dictators, making decisions unilaterally and seeking very little

input or participation from followers. Democratic leaders, by contrast, adopt a very

participative style of leadership, involving followers in all major decisions, either

through a ‘notice and comment’ style dialogue before decisions are rendered, or

through an informal voting-style procedure. Finally, “Laissez-Faire” is a French term

that means to “let do” or to “let be”. It is commonly used in the phrase “Laissez-

Faire Capitalism” to describe the American-style economy where government

seldomly meddles in private sector affairs and generally leaves business and industry

alone. Accordingly, Laissez-Faire leaders are those who are very “hands off” and do

not typically involve themselves in the affairs of their teams unless absolute

necessary. According to the University of Iowa studies, Democratic leaders were

most likely to render high levels of both performance and satisfaction.

 University of Ohio Studies: Another set of studies was conducted by researchers

at the University of Ohio. Instead of looking to classify leadership styles in terms of

the Iowa taxonomy, these scholars measured leaders on two dimensions