1. AIl (
by tl
2. Tec!
zn I step:
thor
that
way
deg:
25
Leader Behavior and Member Reaction
Three "Soaal Climates"
RALPH WHITE AND RONALD LlPPITT
This investigation was carried out in two different parts: an exploratory experiment and
a second, more extensive research. The primary aim of the first study was to develop
techniques for creating and describing the "social atmosphere" of children's clubs and
for quantitatively recording the effects of varied social atmospheres up on group life and
individua I behavior. Two degrees of control of group life, labeled "democratic" and
"authoritarian,' were used as the experimental variables. The second study had a
number of purposes. The one most relevant to this report is to examine the effects upon
individual and group behavior of three variations in social atmosphere, labeled "democratic,'
"authoritarian,' and "laissez-faire." The actual meaning of the adjectives used to
label these social climates is necessarily somewhat different from the meanings attributed
to them in political and economic discussions. The accompanying tabu lati on describes
briefly the chief characteristics of these three treatment variations.
In the first study (Experiment I), the same leader met with two clubs. One group was
led in a democratic manner, the other in an autocratic style. Both groups had five
members, ten years of age. The behavior of the leader and the members was recorded
by observers. A fuller description of the experimental plan for this investigation may be
found in Lippitt (I).
In the second study (Experiment II), four groups of ten-year-old boys were used.
These were also five-member clubs which met after school to engage in hobby activities.
The groups were roughly equated on patterns of interpersonal relationships,
intellectual, physical, and socio-economic status, and personality characteristics. Four
Condensed from a fuller discussion contained in Chapters 3 and 5 of a book by the same
authors, Autocracq (Ind Democracy. New York: Harper, 1960. Reprinted by permission of the
authors and the publishers.
318
3. Th!
ed
anc
eac
4. Th
be
anc
of
alo
tic
on
adult
three
were
each
at th
expe:
unde
sarne
simil
ers
obse
and
cern
case
relal
com
for
and
u
in I
beb
Ieae
po~
wH
eao
In CARTWRIGHT, D.; ZANDER, A. (Eds.) Group Dynamics: Research and Theory. Wileshire: Redwood Press Limited of Trowbridge, 1968. 585 s.
Tento materiál je určen pouze pro studijní účely.
Authoritarian
Leader Behavior and Member Reaction in Three "Social Climates" 319
Laissez-faireDemocratic
1. All determination of policy
by the leader
2. Techniques and activity
steps dictated by the authority,
one at a time, so
that future steps were always
uncertain to a large
degree
3. The leader usually dictated
the particular work task
and work companion of
each member
4. The dominator tended to
be "personal" in his praise
and criticism of the work
of each member; remained
aloof from active group participation
except when dem-
onstrating
1. All policies a matter of
group discussion and decision,
encouraged and assisted
by the leader
2. Activity perspective gained
during discussion period.
General steps to group
goal sketched, and when
technical advice was needed,
the leader suggested
two or more alternative procedures
from which choice
could be made
3. The members were free to
work with whomever they
chose, and the division of
tasks was left up to the
group
4. The leader was "objective"
or "fact-minded" in his
praise and criticism, and
tried to be a regular group
member in spirit without
doing too much of the
work
1. Complete freedom for group
or individual decision, with
a minimum ofleader partici-
pation
2. Various materials supplied
by the leader, who made
it clear that he would supply
information when asked.
He took no other part in
work discussion
3. Complete nonparticipation
of the leader
4. Infrequentspontaneous comments
on member activities
unless questioned, and no attempt
to appraise or regulate
the course of events
adult leaders were trained to proficiency in the
three leadership treatments. The leaders
were shifted from dub to dub every six weeks,
each one changing his leadership style
at the time of this transition. Thus, each dub
experienced each of the leadership styles
under different leaders. All clubs met in the
same place and did the same activities with
similar materials. The behavior of the leaders
and the reactions of the boys were
observed during every meeting. The members
and their parents were also interviewed concerning
their feelings about the dub in the
case of the boys and the nature of parent-child
relations in the case of the home visits. A more
complete description of the experimental plan
for the second study may be found in Lippitt
and White (2).
ln the following pages we shall first describe
in some detail the nature of the leadership
behavior typically used in each of the three
leader treatments. The second part of this report
describes the behavior of the members
when under the direction of a leader using
each of the variations.
LEADER'S BEHA VlOR
To some extent, the observation of what the
leaders actually did was a proces s of discovery,
both for the observer and for the leaders themselves.
As we shall see, some of the statistically
significant differences in leaders' behavior
could not have been directly deduced from our
central definitions, although they tend to be
consistent with these role definitions. The
adult who was faced with the constantly
changing problems of leading a group of children
found himself doing things which he could
never have anticipated he would do. And the
unanticipated things which the leader with the
predetermined autocratic philosophy did were
quite different from the things which he did in
the same situations when he changed to the
democratic role. The data described the dífferent
types of leader-behavior which resulted
from the attempts at consistent application of
the varying philosophies of leadership represented
by the definitions of autocracy, democracy,
and laissez-faire.
Figure 1 presents a summary graph of the
In CARTWRIGHT, D.; ZANDER, A. (Eds.) Group Dynamics: Research and Theory. Wileshire: Redwood Press Limited of Trowbridge, 1968. 585 s.
Tento materiál je určen pouze pro studijní účely.
320 Leadership and Performance oj Group Fun ctions
Authoritarian ••••• Democratic
••••• Laissez-Faire
r'----------,,----------,-----------T'----------,-----------,
Orders
Disrupting
Commands
Nonconstructive
Criticism
Guiding
Suggestions
Extending
Knowledge
Stimulating
Selř-Guidance •• 1111
Praise and
Approval
Jovial and
eonlident i-,;.---I
Matter 01 Fact
o 20 30 40!O
Per Cent
FIGURE 1. Comparison of behavior of average authoritarian, democratic, and
laissez-faire leader.
leader behavior in terms of the percentage of
total behavior in each category. These percentages
are based upon the grand total of
behavior in a given style of leadership over six
meetings. All differences concerning leadership
behavior which are discussed are statistically
significant at the 5%level of confidence
or better.
50
giVÍng of orders. Forty-five per cent of the
verbal behavior of the autocrats, in contrast to
3%in democracy and 4%in laissez-faire,consisted
of this simplest form of the imposition of one
human will upon another. Many of these were
direct orders or statements in the imperative
form:
"Get your work aprons on." 1
"AI! right, put your hrush away.'
1 The il!ustrations used throughout this chapter
are sample episod es or units of descriptions taken
from the continuous research records of the group
process.
GIVING ORDERS
Statistically, the chief single characteristic
of our autocratic leader role, as distinguished
from both democracy and laissez-faire, is the
"Each of you
back."
And many were
perative form, l»
given in certain
ofvoice:
"Now we nee
"That should
"Today we"
sign."
"Before we
to do. Thaťs to
Such orders ci<
our strict expe:
leadership wh
means control.'
DISRUPTlI
A more am
end control is
mands" -coml
pressed wish '
of the group,
the leader. Su
the verbal be
as contrasted
and laissez-fai
"1want to
"No, Bili,
Mr. Bohlen
volunteers,
Bohlen app
Sam and L
tently refus
do-paintin
The data
were consisí
initiating go
NON-OE
PRAISE
A third
characterisl
"non-objecl
adverse an
did not po
by suggest
doing the
tuted 5%(
In CARTWRIGHT, D.; ZANDER, A. (Eds.) Group Dynamics: Research and Theory. Wileshire: Redwood Press Limited of Trowbridge, 1968. 585 s.
Tento materiál je určen pouze pro studijní účely.
Leader Behavior and Member Reaction in Three "Social Climates" 321
"Each of you turn yours over and try on the
back."
And many were indirect orders, not in the imperative
form, but recognizable as autocratic íf
given in certain contexts and in certain tones
ofvoice:
"Now we need sorne plaster."
"That should be about two-thirds ful!."
"Today we've got to paint and letter the
sign."
"Before we start there's sornething we have
to do. Thaťs to rnake work aprons."
Such orders clearly correspond to the part of
our strict experimental definition of autocratic
leadership which calls for "hígh goal and
rneans control."
DlSRUPTlNG COMMANDS
A more ambiguous criterion of means and
end control is the giving of "disrupting comrnands"-commands
which cut across an expressed
wish or ongoing activity of a member
of the group, and substitute for it some wish of
the leader. Such commands represented 11% of
the verbal behavior of our autocratic leaders,
as contrasted to 1% or less for our democratic
and laissez-faire leaders. For example:
"I want to saw."
"No, Bill, you and Harni! rnake another leg."
Mr. Bohlen says he wants "two fellows." Fred
volunteers, "Let Reilly and rne do it." But Mr.
Bohlen appoints two others: 'Trn going to let
Sarn and Leonard do this." Mr. Bohlen consistently
refuses to let Fred do what he wants to
do-painting on the sign.
oer cent of the
ts, in contrast to
z-faire, consisted
nposition of one
1y of these were
. the imperative
The data show that the laissez-faire leaders
were consistent in restraining themselves from
initiating goals and means.
NON-OB}ECTlVE CRlTlCISM AND
PRAISE
iy."
hout this chapter
lescriptions taken
Jrds of the group
A third type of behavior which was more
characteristic of our autocratic leaders was
"non-objective criticism"-criticism which was
adverse and personal in character and which
did not point objectively toward improvement
by suggesting a reason for failure or a way of
doing the thing better. Such criticism constituted
5% of the leaders' behavior in our autocratic
atmospheres and 1% in the democratic
and laissez-faire atmospheres. For example:
"You're not rnaking a sack, you're rnaking an
apron."
"No, you can't rnake it like that. That isn't a
good job at all."
"Who was it left the tool box on the floor
again?"
Praise was also found more often in the
autocrats' behavior (11%) than in that of the
democratic (7%)or laissez-faire (5%)leaders. For
example:
Fred is doing a nice job of lettering, and Mr.
Bohlen complirnents hirn on it-the second complirnent
he has given hirn today. "Thaťs the best
side view there. But I think I want a front
view."
(ln dernocracy) Bill to Mr. Rankin: "Eddie
really did a swell job on that, dídn't he? I
couldn't do as good a job as that."
Mr. Rankin: "Yeah, iťs swell."
Different kinds of praise in different contexts
can obviously (like different kinds of criticism)
have widely different psychological
meanings. Yet it is probably signiRcant, from
more than one standpoint, that both praise
and criticism were especially characteristic of
our autocratic leaders. From our present
standpoint, however, the most interesting implication
of the large amount of both praise
and criticism is that both suggest an emphasis
on personal evaluation from the leadeť s standpoint.
Both suggest an emphasis on a statushierarchy,
and both suggest that the leader is
setting himself up as chief judge of the status
and achievement of the members of the
group.
GUlDlNG SUGGESTlONS
We come now to the forms of leaderbehavior
that were more characteristic of
democratic or of laissez-faire leadership than
of autocratic. For example, as a direct counterpart
of the order-giving which was characteristic
of the autocratic style, we find "guiding
suggestions" to be one of the two most frequent
forms of verbal behavior on the part of
democratic leaders. It represents 24% of the
democratic leaders' behavior, as compared
with 6%of the autocrats' behavior. The line between
"guiding suggestions" and the indirect
type of order-giving is, of course, somewhat
In CARTWRIGHT, D.; ZANDER, A. (Eds.) Group Dynamics: Research and Theory. Wileshire: Redwood Press Limited of Trowbridge, 1968. 585 s.
Tento materiál je určen pouze pro studijní účely.
322 Leadership and Performance of Group Functions
difficult to draw. Howe ver, the reliability of
making this distinction in the coding of the
conversation was satisfactory. The way in
which we defined "guiding suggestions" can
be seen from the folIowing examples, which
were cIassified in this way:
"Díd you ever try going the other way-with
the grain?"
"That's a knife-sharpener so you can have
sharp knives to carve wood with."
Bili holds up his model for Mr. Rankin to see.
"That's pretty weak there.' Mr. Rankin: "If you
don't get it any thinner I think it wil\ be all
right."
Mr. Rankin sits down beside Van as he works.
"That's good, Van, because if you leave as big a
piece as that you can try again."
The distinguishing characteristic in each of
these examples is that a given course of action
is implicitIy or explicitly related to one of the
boy's own purposes. Very similar in psychological
meaning is the clarifying oj alternatives,
between which the boys themselves are
free to choose (which was incIuded in this
same category):
"Motíon carried. Now the question is, who
wants to be the G-man?" (AII speak.) "Should
we choose from everybody that wants to be, or
just those that haven't had a chance yet?"
And similar, too, is the giving of suggestions
by example rather than by precept:
Reil\y discovers that Mr. Rankin is making
papier-rnáché, and stops throwing to join him.
He tears up paper too, and so do es Fred. Leonard
stops throwing. The group is gathered
around Mr. Rankin and is listening to him and
paying attention.
Bili: "Leťs get ready to go horne."
Mr. Rankin (picking up a broorn): "We don't
have much cleaning up to do today."
It should be especialIy noticed that a very
active readiness to give guiding suggestions at
precisely those moments when they are ap propriate
and appreciated, and to point out the
operating procedure which lies behind the
efficient action, was in practice the chief single
difference between the democratic and laissezfaire
leaders. In laissez-faire such suggestions
made up only 14% of the leader's verbal behavior,
as compared with 24% in democracy and
6%in autocracy.
ln other words, democracy (as distinguished
from laissez-faire) did not imply freedom
alone, i.e., a relatively passive "regard" for the
chilďs welfare, in the sense that the chilďs
desires were not needlessly thwarted. If either
individual welfare or group achievement is to
be fulIy attained, the democratic leader took
the viewpoint that it is necessary to have also
a very active respect for those individual desires
in the sense of a constant active thinking
about how they can best be realized. Only by
such fulI participation in the life of the group
can the leader realIy lead. For instance, the
following are examples in which a boy wanted
guidance and did not get it. In some situations
exactly the same behavior by the leaderthrowing
back the question the boy askedwould
be a constructive device for stimulating
self-guidance. In these situations, however,
it seemed to be merely a result of insensitivity
to the boy's legitimate needs for goal or means
suggestions:
Reilly: "Where can we put this up?"
Mr. Rankin: "Where would you like to put it
up?"
Leonard: "How do you cut it?"
Mr. Rankin: "What do you think? Cut it in
the right shape. . . ."
But, at the other extreme, the democratic
leader had to avoid overcomplicated suggestions,
such as the folIowing, both of which are
double-barreled and at least slightly con-
fusing:
"Who wants to help who to get things
finished up?"
"Have you been thinking about a G-man
Club? Do you want a meeting now, fel\ows?"
The effective use of guiding suggestions
seems to depend on timing. The democratic
leader had to have a keen sense of awareness
of the shifting momentary needs and interests
of the boys so that he could make his suggestions
at just the moments when they fitted into
those interests.
GIVING INFORMA TlON
Another major activity of the democratic
leader was simply giving information, or extending
the knowledge of the members of his
group. This constituted 27% of the democratic
leaders' behavior, and 15% of the autocratic
leaders'. (In laisse
natural in view of
leaders' role was t
ly to the giving o
asked for it.) Ach
information giver
was not significa
the proportion w:
faire. Here are s
formation-giving:
Finn (holding
this for?"
Mr. Rankin: "
the Hat end is
(Demonstrates.)
you can get a s
narrower than tl
There is a d
about the ages
and Fred listen
of the knives.
ested.
(In laissez-f
"Why can't we I
Mr. Davis: Ul
week if you war
One meaning
pared with eitl
tions, is that th
being a form (
The informatiOl
take it or leave
ing on his needs
STIMULAT
Less freque
leader-behaviol
lating self-dirE
was fairly frec
nonexistent ir
were, respecti'
made up 13% o
leaders, this OJ
such acts per
by democrati
tended to be
this type of
throwing bac1
vidual membe
more frequenl
to leam to der
One way
direction in !
In CARTWRIGHT, D.; ZANDER, A. (Eds.) Group Dynamics: Research and Theory. Wileshire: Redwood Press Limited of Trowbridge, 1968. 585 s.
Tento materiál je určen pouze pro studijní účely.
means is to inculcate the democratic procedure
directly: group decision, majority vote,
free discussion with an opportunity for every
interested person to have his say, secret balIot
when appropriate, delegation of special tasks
to committees, minority acceptance of majority
decisions, etc. For example:
Leader Behavior and Member Reaction in Three "Social Climates" 323
, distinguished
nply freedom
.egard" for the
lat the chilďs
trted. If either
ievement is to
ic leader took
y to have also
individual de.ctive
thinking
lized. Only by
: of the group
instance, the
a boy wanted
Jme situations
the leader,
boy askedDr
stimulating
ms, however,
)f insensitivity
goal or means
leaders'. (In laissez-faire it was 49%, which is
natural in view of the fact that the laissez-faire
leaders' role was explicitly confined very largely
to the giving of technical information when
asked for it.) ActualIy the amount of technical
information given by the three leader types
was not significantly different, even though
the proportion was so much greater in laissezfaire.
Here are some typical examples of in-
formation-giving:
Finn (holding up orangewood stick): "Whaťs
this for?"
Mr. Rankin: "That's an orangewood stick, and
the fiat end is for smoothing down this way."
(Demonstrates.) "This is more curved here, and
you can get a smoother tip of soap because iťs
narrower than this.'
There is a dispute between the two groups
about the ages of the knives .... Reilly, Sam
and Fred listen to Mr. Rowe talk about the ages
of the knives. They are all very much inter-
ested.
(In laissez-faire) Finn (very plaintively):
"Why can't we have a crime?"
Mr. Davis: "I could have a crime for you next
week if you wanted me to,"
?"~p.
li like to put it
iink? Cut it in One meaning of information-giving, as compared
with either orders or guiding suggestions,
is that there is almost no chance of its
being a form of social influence or pressure.
The information is simply there. The boy can
take it or leave it, use it or not use it, depending
on his needs at the moment.
e democratic
cated suggesof
which are
slightly con:0
get things STlMULATlNG SELF-DlRECTlON
out a G-man
10W, fellows?"
Less frequent numerically is a group of
leader-behaviors which we ha ve called "stimulating
self-dírectíon.' This type of behavior
was fairly frequent in democracy and almost
nonexistent in autocracy; the percentages
were, respectively, 16 and 1.2. Although this
made up 13% of the behavior of the laissez-faire
leaders, this only represented an average of 30
such acts per meeting, as compared with 59
by democratic leaders. The meaning also
tended to be quite different. In laissez-faire
this type of leadership act tended to be a
throwing back of responsibility on the individual
member. In the democratic style it was
more frequently a teaching of the total group
to leam to depend on itself as a group.
One way of stimulating democratic selfdirection
in setting new goals and choosing
: suggestions
e democratic
of awareness
and interests
e his suggesey
fitted into
, democratic
ition, or exmbers
of his
~democratic
e autocratic
Finn: "Guess 1'\1 change the name of our
dub."
Bili: "No, iťs stili the Law and Order Pa-
trol."
Mr. Rankin: "If the group wants to change
the name, they can-if a majority wants.'
Bili: "Eddíe should be captain and Van
should be a lieutenant-assistant.'
Van: "Hey, thaťs lower than I am now, and I
got a high score!"
Mr. Rankin: "In an army, the general decides
the promotions; but here, even if it is organized
like an army, it seems to me the group ought to
decide who should get the prornotion.'
Bili: "Now you stay out of it and we three
will vote.' Mr. Rankin steps in to confer with
Bili about taking a vote. He gives him a formal
wording. "A\1 in favor say aye, opposed, no,"
etc. (Bili is especia\1y keen on formality and
"having things regular.")
Finn votes for adjournment, and the motion
passes. Bili starts to ignore the vote and keep on
with the discussion. Mr. Rankin: "AlI right we
don't have any meeting now íf the majoríty
votes to adjourn.'
It wilI be noticed that in some of the above
examples the role of the democratic adult
leader is chiefly one of supporting or bringing
to clear expression the feeling of the majority.
He is a catalyst, releasing energies that already
exist in the group. This was done formaIly
by insisting on a majority when dispute
had arisen and backing up the majority with
his own prestige. It was also done informaIly
by simply listening to and drawing out the less
articulate or les s vociferous members of the
group. It is also sometimes necessary to support
a minority, especiaIly íf it is opposed by
an even smaller minority. This occurred, for
instance, when Finn and Hamil were refusing
to accept the arbitrary leadership of BilI. The
other two members did not take part in this
contest so that it was actually a conflict of two
against one.
Bili: "It's time for our meeting. The second
half of our meeting will come to order. Come on
boys."
In CARTWRIGHT, D.; ZANDER, A. (Eds.) Group Dynamics: Research and Theory. Wileshire: Redwood Press Limited of Trowbridge, 1968. 585 s.
Tento materiál je určen pouze pro studijní účely.