Review Of Theories Within The Framework Of A Behavioral Approach To Leadership Research

2024 Author: Harry Day | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 15:43

In the 1950s. a behavioral approach to the study of leadership was created, which is based on an attempt to overcome the main drawback of leadership traits theories - the impossibility of purposeful leadership training. If trait theory postulated the innate nature of leadership qualities, and, accordingly, the uniqueness of the leader himself, then the behavioral approach based on behaviorism postulated that leadership is a simple set of behavioral manifestations. And if we replace personal qualities, i.e. characteristics that cannot be observed directly on behavioral manifestations that are objectively observable events, then nothing will prevent us from studying a particular behavioral act and transferring it as a skill to another person. Thus, the behavioral approach proved that leadership can be taught, and the behavioral manifestations of a leader that could be taught were called behavioral or leadership style. Moreover, the researchers, within the framework of this approach, believed that of all types and methods of leaders' behavior, the best ones can be selected and, accordingly, the most effective leadership style can be modeled.

Leadership style concept

The understanding of the style of behavior that we described above is not unique. On the contrary, there are a large number of views on the interpretation of this issue, in particular, the leadership style can be understood as:

1. A set of systematically used decision-making methods (I. P. Volkov, A. L. Zhuravlev, A. A. Rusalinova, etc.).
2. A set of sustainable methods and techniques of influencing subordinates, that is, the communication style (Michael Mescon).
3. Personal qualities of a leader that determine the choice of certain methods of activity (D. P. Kaidalov and E. I. Sulimenko; D. M. Cound).
4. A set of norms and rules that the manager adheres to in relation to subordinates (J. Purcell).
5. Orientation to production tasks, or to relationships in the team (F. Fiedler).
6. Ideas about human nature as such (D. MacGregor).

Review of classical theories in the framework of a behavioral approach to the study of leadership

Although this idea of leadership style could be called grandiose, since it opened up a large number of opportunities and a huge scope for research, after all, if you think about it, previously the only way to achieve effective leadership was either selecting people using personality tests and screening out those who are incapable of leadership, or generally letting everything go by itself (the leader will show himself), then, with the advent of this approach, it became possible to educate leaders in the right places. However, with the discovery of new possibilities, new fundamental problems have also opened up, such as the creation of modeling criteria, as well as the choice of the modeling object, i.e. before modeling leadership, it is necessary to understand what it is, which of the behavioral manifestations of a given subject are leadership, and which are not. As a result, it all boiled down to modeling rational interaction with subordinates and creating theories of leadership, but not leadership in the socio-psychological sense of the word.

One of the earliest studies of leadership style was conducted by R. M. R. M. Stogdill [1], when three styles were found in preschool leaders:

1. instrumental (involving others in constructive games);
2. social (aimed at cooperation);
3. gangster (the leader achieved personal goals with the help of strength and emphasized disrespect for others).

Lewin, Lippitt and White [2] explored liberal, democratic and authoritarian leadership styles.

1. An authoritarian leader makes all decisions and does not allow subordinates to influence this process; the leader is indifferent to their needs.
2. A democratic leader consults with his subordinates when solving various issues and allows them to influence the decision-making process; this style encourages initiative from subordinates and communicates with them on an equal footing.
3. The liberal leader allows subordinates to have complete autonomy, rarely controlling them, giving them the opportunity to make tactical decisions; with this approach, subordinates set their own goals and work to achieve them, while the manager does not leave his office.

It should be noted that recently, the liberal style has not been seen as a practical guide to action at all. Rather, it is perceived as a complete refusal of the leader from managing people.

Although this experiment was not at all a study of leadership in organizations (the styles emphasized were the result of observations of children and their caregivers), the allusion to organizational leadership attracted the attention of many researchers in organizational psychology, and now this experiment is considered a classic in the industry.

Later, many researchers developed the problem of leadership styles based on Lewin's classification.

One of these researchers was R. Likert. Together with colleagues and the University of Michigan, he conducted studies that compared groups with high productivity and groups with low productivity [3]. As a result of their research, they concluded that the difference in performance was due to leadership style. According to whether the leader concentrates on work or on the subordinate, four leadership styles have been distinguished.

1. Exploitative-authoritarian style (system 1). There is no trust in subordinates. Motivation is based on punishment, threats, and random rewards. The flow of information is directed from top to bottom, and the information that comes from subordinates is inaccurate and distorted. Decisions are made without taking into account the opinions of subordinates.
2. Benevolent authoritarian (system 2). Leaders maintain authoritarian relationships with their subordinates, but allow them limited participation in decision-making. Subordinates are privy to the affairs of the organization. The reward system is more developed, the flow of information is better organized. And the attitude of the leader towards his subordinates is rather paternalistic than arbitrary. It is possible to use the ideas of subordinates.
3. Democratic consultative (system 3). The leader shows confidence in his subordinates. Communication takes place bilaterally. Strategic decisions are made at the top, but many tactical decisions can be made by subordinates.
4. Participatory style (system 4). All decisions are made by the group. Leaders fully trust their subordinates. Relationships with subordinates are friendly and confidential. Leaders are human-centered.

In the course of the study, Likert interviewed hundreds of managers, not only trying to validate his model, but also to prove that the most effective style is a participatory style.

Muczyk and Reimann (1987) argued in their paper [4] that there are actually two dimensions: the degree to which subordinates are allowed to participate in decision-making (the authoritarian-democratic dimension) and the degree to which managers indicate to subordinates. how to do the job (liberal-directive dimension). If these dimensions are viewed independently of each other, then we can describe leaders as belonging primarily to one of four types: directive autocrat, liberal autocrat, directive democrat, liberal democrat.

Another classification, similar to Levin's, was proposed by Douglas McGregor in his theories X and Y [5].

Theory X is characterized by significant centralization of power and control. According to her: a person is lazy, does not like to work; he lacks ambition, he avoids responsibility, preferring to be led. Accordingly, to motivate a subordinate, an authoritarian management style is required, using methods of coercion and threat.

Theory Y assumes: delegation of authority; improving relationships in the team; taking into account the motivation of performers and their psychological needs; enrichment of the content of the work. It is based on the following premises: labor is a natural process for a person; a person strives for responsibility and self-control; he is capable of creative solutions. Accordingly, the theory assumes the use of a democratic management style with an emphasis on encouraging the employee and his initiative.

While Likert was doing his research at the University of Michigan, Ralph Stogdill headed research at Ohio State University.

It was there that, beginning in 1945, a group of scientists identified a mistake in the concept of dividing leaders into those who are focused either on work or on people. Their main find was that people can combine both work orientation and human orientation.

They developed a system in which the leader's behavior was classified according to two parameters: structure and attention to subordinates.

The structure implies that the leader plans and organizes the activities of the group and the relationship with it. This may include the following types of leader behavior: distributes roles among subordinates; schedules tasks and explains the requirements for their implementation; plans and draws up work schedules; develops approaches to work performance; conveys his concern about completing the assignment.

Attention to subordinates involves influencing people by appealing to the needs of the highest level, building relationships based on trust and respect. Here such behavior of the leader can be manifested, such as: participates in two-way communication; allows subordinates to participate in decision-making; communicates in a friendly manner; enables subordinates to satisfy their work-related needs.

The above approach was developed in the model of Robert Blake and Jane Mouton, called "The Leadership Grid" [6]. They categorized leadership styles according to the criterion of concern for a person and concern for production. Each of the criteria is on a scale from 1 to 9. Leadership style is determined by both criteria; the intersection of two values on the coordinate axis, therefore, leadership styles are numbered in accordance with the value obtained on the scales:

1.1. Primitive leadership. The minimum effort is required from the manager to achieve the quality of work that will avoid dismissal. The manager treats both subordinates and the production process coldly. He believes that a manager can always resort to the help of an expert. Such conduct of affairs helps to avoid conflicts, troubles, creates favorable conditions for the work of the leader himself. But, as a rule, such a manager cannot be called a leader.

1.9 Social leadership. The manager focuses on relationships but cares little about production efficiency. Particular attention is paid to the needs of subordinates. Such managers see the basis for success in maintaining an atmosphere of trust and mutual understanding in the team. Subordinates love such a leader and are ready to support him in difficult times. However, excessive gullibility often leads to poor decision making by the leader, due to which production suffers.

9.1 Authoritative Leadership. The leader directs all attention to the effectiveness of work, while refusing to social activity, because, in his opinion, it is a manifestation of spinelessness and leads to mediocre results. Such a leader believes that the quality of decisions does not depend on the degree of participation of subordinates. The positive features of the style are a high level of responsibility, ability to work, organizational talent and intelligence of the leader. However, such a manager often tries to keep too much distance from subordinates, because of which mutual understanding is lost, and discipline is established only at a satisfactory level.

5.5. Production and command management. Here, an acceptable quality of assignments is achieved, due to the balance between efficiency and relationships in the team. Such a manager considers a compromise to be the best solution. Decisions should be made by the leader, but with the participation of subordinates. The positive features of the style are: constancy, interest in the success of various endeavors, non-standard thinking, progressive views. However, the competitiveness of firms with such a style sometimes leaves much to be desired, as well as some aspects of collective life.

9.9. Team Leadership. Through attention to subordinates and emphasis on efficiency, the leader achieves the involvement of subordinates in the goals of the organization, ensuring high morale and productivity. Moreover, the best way to increase productivity is the active involvement of subordinates in the decision-making process. This allows you to increase employee satisfaction and take into account the nuances that affect the efficiency of the production process.

Modern classifications of leadership styles

Among the modern approaches, one can name the classification of leadership styles by I. Ninomiya (J. S. Ninomiya, 1988), who identified the following models of leader behavior.

1. Patriarch. Completely controls all aspects of the activities of subordinates, from which unconditional diligence is required. Subordinates are not involved in the preparation of decisions.
2. Bird ostrich. He is focused on his status, seeks to avoid conflicts, is afraid of differences of opinion. The leader is characterized by a high level of competence; however, he is more suited to the role of an assistant because he lacks initiative and flexibility.
3. Individualist. Strives to do everything himself; subordinates are usually deprived of any initiative, they quickly lose interest in the case.
4. Pedant. He wants to know everything in detail, opposes collective decision-making, does not trust anyone.
5. Politician. He does not show that he has his own opinion, he feels the atmosphere well.
6. Mediator. Knows people, communicative, supporter of group decision-making and co-creation. Inclined to compromise, unable to show will.
7. A diligent beaver. He prepares an activity plan for himself and others, evaluates the success of the activity according to purely formal indicators. Not focused on high results. The main thing for him is the process of work itself.

M. James (M. James) developed a classification of negative types of leaders:

1. An overly critical leader. He believes that achieving results from subordinates is possible only by constantly showing dissatisfaction. Excessive criticism undermines people's faith in their capabilities, disrupts relationships, weakens trust and grows dissatisfaction.
2. An overly “paternalistic” leader. Protects subordinates from difficulties, suppresses the development of business qualities, relieving them of responsibility.
3. Inconsistent leader. Often changes their decisions or, contrary to previously stated requirements, makes them accountable for such results, the achievement of which was not envisaged.
4. Evading direct leadership. Seeks to shift authority and responsibility to subordinates.
5. "Overorganized" leader. For him, the only value is the performance of work in accordance with established standards. All efforts are given to the regulation of work, so the manager does not have time to implement it. Style makes subordinates indifferent to work, although the leaders themselves are friendly and supportive.
6. A leader striving to cover all issues. Creates an atmosphere of anxiety, generates in subordinates a feeling of insecurity and tension, caused by a constant readiness for unexpected demands.

Research on Leadership Styles in Russia

The Russian psychologist A. A. Ershov, highlighting the manager's orientation: to work; on the psychological climate; to myself; to the official subordination [7].

At the same time, a particular leader may not be limited to one style, but use, depending on the situation, all four. The allocation of an orientation towards oneself or towards official subordination in a situation where a manager makes a decision, more accurately reflects reality than some foreign classifications.

E. S. Kuzmin, I. P. Volkov, Yu. N. Emelyanov propose five styles of leadership: remote, contact, goal-setting, delegating and problem-organizing [8]. Each of them appropriately characterizes, according to the authors, the personality of the leader and the organizational principles of his work with people.

A. L. Zhuravlev and V. F. Rubakhin distinguishes seven main styles of leadership: directive, collegial, liberal, directive-collegial, directive-liberal, collegial-liberal and mixed.

Criticism of the behavioral approach

The main points of criticism of the behavioral approach will be listed below.

The problem of causation. The behavioral approach is, for the most part, based on the assumption that the leader's style influences the performance or motivation of employees. But, at the same time, most studies of leadership styles were carried out using the cross-sectional method: data on the leadership style and the dependent variable (performance, satisfaction) are collected simultaneously, and then correlations are established between them. But the correlation of variables does not mean that there is a causal relationship between them. Therefore, it cannot be argued that leadership style determines performance, and causality can only be established in longitudinal studies.

Greene (1975) is the author of one such study. Specifically, he measured the effect of leader behavior four times at one-month intervals. The results showed that leaders who were attentive to their subordinates experienced greater satisfaction, and their productivity influenced the behavior of the leader, i.e. poor performance of subordinates forced the leader to resort to a structuring style. The results of the study led to the conclusion that it is productivity that affects the style of leadership, and not vice versa, as was previously thought.

The problem of the group is manifested in the fact that most of the data collected in the framework of the behavioral approach is the average responses of individual employees, while the phenomenon of leadership itself involves the study of the relationship between the leader and the group. As a result, researchers are reluctant to accept that a leader with individual group members can behave differently. Some research has shown that individual responses from learners can better predict their satisfaction and understanding of their role (Katerberg & Horn, 1981).

Informal leadership. Almost all widely spread foreign studies of leadership styles ignore the problem of informal leadership. However, employees often recognize as their leader someone who is not a leader. Therefore, such studies can focus on the “wrong” object of modeling.

Lack of analysis of the situation. The main disadvantage of the approach is the lack of consideration of situational factors. There are many such environmental variables that influence the choice of leadership style, such as knowledge; organizational structure, characteristics of subordinates and much more. Moreover, the very effectiveness of a particular style may depend on the situation, i.e.we cannot say that the democratic style of leadership is the most effective, we can only say that this style is preferable in a given situation, and, for example, an authoritarian style will also be effective, but in a different situation.

Several more problems can be added to the above problems.

Lack of analysis of personality traits. Despite the fact that the behavioral approach became, at one time, revolutionary in relation to the theory of personality traits, this does not mean that it completely ruled out the correctness of the latter. Researchers view the behavior of a leader as something isolated, independent of his personality traits. But in fact, these two things cannot be separated, especially if we are talking about informal leadership. The extent to which a person will be able to exhibit this or that behavior depends precisely on his personal qualities. For example, an introvert will find it much more difficult to communicate with people than an extrovert, regardless of previous training. Of course, when it comes only to formal interaction, this miscalculation does not make itself felt so strongly, but when we consider leadership as a socio-psychological phenomenon, when we include many more parameters and informal ways of interaction in the leadership style, this shortcoming immediately rushes into eyes.

Lack of clear criteria. Another problem is that the very term "behavior" is not well understood. Maybe this is just a combination of muscle contractions, or maybe the internal (cognitive and emotional) work of the subject. If in the first case, behavior is easily modeled, and we just copy it, then no one has come up with ideal criteria for modeling internal work, although it is worth noting that representatives of NLP and Neuropsychology have made good progress in this regard.

Let us dwell on the most important, according to the author, problem - this is the absence of a causal relationship, or, more simply, misunderstanding of the object of modeling. At the moment, a large number of behavioral leadership models have been created, but what is modeled in them remains a mystery. More precisely, most of these models are created to describe the rational ways of interaction between a manager and a subordinate, but nothing more. If we understand leadership as the ability to create internal motivation in a person for a particular activity, and this is how it should be understood, then practically no behavioral concept explains this process. That is why in Russian literature we observe such a strict separation of the concepts of "leadership" and "leadership", which makes it possible for Russian authors to achieve great success in the study of this area.

In any case, due to the above shortcomings, the behavioral approach has ceased to be so relevant, and it has been replaced by a systems approach and situational leadership theories.

Bibliographic list

1. Stogdill R. Handbook of leadership: a survey of theory and research. - N. Y.: The Free Press, 1974
2. Lewin Kurt; Lippitt Ronald; White Ralph. “Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates” // Journal of Social Psychology. 1939. pp. 271-301.
3. Likert R. New patterns of management. - New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.
4. Muczyk J. P., Reimann B. C. MBO as a Complement to Effective Leadership // The Academy of Management Executive. 1989. - No. 3, pp. 131-138.
5. McGregor D. The Human Side of Enterprise. - N. Y.: McGraw-Hill, 1960.
6. Blake R., Mouton J. Scientific methods of leadership. - K.: Nauk. Dumka, 1992 - p. 155-162.
7. T. V. Bendas Gender Psychology: Textbook. - SPb.: Peter, 2006.-- p. 417.
8. Volkov I. P., Zakharov A. I., Ereshchyan O. L., Timofeev Yu. The influence of leadership and leadership on group dynamics under stress. // Leadership and leadership. - L.: LSU, 1979.