How can you become a leader ?

In social psychology, researchers have for a long time been interested in the traits of leaders. Their hope was to find similarities between them in order to determine the most appropriate way to choose a leader, or on what criteria to select.

What are the traits of a leader? Which leadership is the most effective?

Over the last century, this issue has been interpreted in three different ways that we will be looking at today.

Then we will see how to answer these questions.

3 approaches to leadership

---

For a long time, researchers have thought that a person's character and behaviour were the most important components of leadership. This current of thought, called the personalist approach, distinguished between leaders and non-leaders.

This interpretation of leadership made it possible to create the managerial grid (Blake & Mouton), a tool for analysing management styles.

This approach assumes that there is an ideal way to control whatever the situation.

Indeed, we observe on the managerial grid that the "Team Management" style has the highest levels of interest in results and human relations.

Which brings us to the opposite work, the situationist approach. It informs us that it is the situation that determines who will become a leader or not.

If you look at history, you realize that some people have become leaders simply because they were in the right place and at the right time.

Finally, the third approach, called interactionist, uses the two previous approaches. One should therefore take into account both the qualities of an individual and the situation in which he or she finds himself or herself.

According to Fiedler, one of the most influential psychologists in the world of industrial and organizational psychology, a command style will be more or less effective depending on the situation.

From this point of view, therefore, there is no ideal command style as for the personalist approach.

These approaches all have one thing in common. They have two axis, the degree of interest in the task and the degree of interest in the group.

At the very beginning, psychologists believed that a command style should be either task-oriented or group oriented. This is called one-dimensional design.

However, this idea was quickly replaced by a two-dimensional concept, i. e. it is possible to be both task oriented and group oriented, completely independent of each other.

There are 3 main styles of command: democratic (trend to be group oriented), authoritarian (trend to be task oriented) and "laissez-faire". So we will look for which of these command styles is most effective.

A style to rule them all

---

In 1939, psychology researchers White, Lewin and Lippitt conducted an experiment to study the effect of leadership on a group.

They attributed to 3 groups of young boys a democratic leader, an authoritarian leader, and a laissez-faire type.

The democratic leader encourages group members to participate, and gives everyone the power to express themselves and share their suggestions.

The authoritarian leader, on the other hand, forces young boys to follow his instructions and does not accept any suggestions.

The leader "laissez-faire" on his side, hardly intervened. He was only there to give the children information about the task at hand.

The objective of these psychologists was to demonstrate that the democratic style of command would have the best result.

Authoritarian and democratic styles have proven to be broadly equivalent in terms of productivity.
However, the democratic style will have created a sense of satisfaction and friendship with the children of the group.

Stogdill's theory of leadership traits in 1974 came to the same conclusion: democratic style is not necessarily more productive than authoritarian style.

The experience of these 3 researchers (White, Lewin and Lippitt) has nevertheless allowed us to highlight the behaviour of the groups when the leader was present or absent.

Thus, for the group led by an authoritarian leader, if this one is present, the members are the most productive of the 3 groups studied.
If absent, the group becomes very unproductive.

For the Democratic Leader group, when it is present or absent, productivity remains stable.

But then, how do you explain this difference ?

It is simple. Under an authoritarian regime, an individual has no choice whether or not to comply. He is obliged to respond to demands, and will therefore set aside his freedoms to give what is expected of him. But this will make him dissatisfied and will want to stop the task as soon as the authoritarian leader is absent.

As we have already seen in my previous article on psychology and power, humans are likely to submit easily to a figure of authority.

For the democratic system, people have a choice of whether or not to participate. They keep their freedoms. This will necessarily reduce the overall level of productivity, but it will allow individuals to feel concerned about the task, since it is for the good of the group.

Lewin, White and Lippitt's work will therefore prove that it is not on productivity that there is a major difference, but on the moral and motivational implications of group members.

Conclusion

---

But then what is the best style of command?

As stated at the beginning of this article, there is no command style more effective than any other in an absolute sense. This experience clearly shows that there is competition between two styles of leadership, which are more or less effective depending on the situation.

Researchers such as Higgins believe that each individual has a preference for a particular style of command.

Many other studies aim to demonstrate the importance of social identity. In addition, political efforts to integrate women and minorities into leadership positions are also noteworthy, which can of course raise new questions about leadership. In 2003, Eagly and Carli conducted research that informed us that women are more likely to adopt democratic leadership, and that despite prejudice, they are just as effective as men.

---

To go further :

What makes a leader ?, Daniel Goleman, The January 2004 issue, Harvard Business Review
The Relationship Between Leadership and Personality, Andrew J. Marsiglia, August 2005
The Psychology of Leadership in Rapidly Changing Conditions, L. Pratch & J. Jacobowitz, Pratch and Co
Differences Between Power, Leadership, Authority & Influence
, Rob Wengrzyn, Study.com
5 Different Types of Leadership Styles, Rose Johnson, Chron.com

Did you like this article? So follow me, and never miss my next publications again. Don't forget to leave a comment to tell me what you think about it, and an upvote, it's always as satisfying :D

Other articles you might be interested in :

---