Previous research highlights one of the paradoxes of different leadership styles: Group members may be more satisfied with democratic leadership, or group members may be more satisfied with autocratic leadership. A meta-analytic integration of research evidence addressing this paradox revealed that there was, in general, a significant, small tendency for groups experiencing democratic leadership to be more satisfied than groups experiencing autocratic leadership. However, these effects were moderated by several variables, including the reality of the groups, the size of the groups, the gender composition of the groups, and the potency of leadership style. These moderating variables may be important given the recent push toward adoption of democratic decision making in organizations. The discussion considers theoretical accounts for these effects of leadership style on member satisfaction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bass, B. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
2.
Berkowitz, L. (1953). Sharing leadership in small, decision-making groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 231-238.
3.
Bevan, W. , Albert, R. S., Loiseaux, P. R., Mayfield, P. N., & Wright, G. (1958). Jury behavior as a function of the prestige of the foreman and the nature of leadership. Journal of Public Law, 7, 419-449.
4.
Day, R. C. , & Hamblin, R. L. (1964). Some effects of close and punitive styles of supervision. American Journal of Sociology, 69, 499-510.
5.
Denhardt, R. B. (1970). Leadership style, worker involvement and deference to authority. Sociology and Social Research, 54, 172-180.
6.
Devine, P. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: The automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.
7.
Foa, U. G. (1957). Relation of workers expectation to satisfaction with supervisor. Personnel Psychology, 10, 161-168.
8.
Gastil, J. (1994). A meta-analytic review of the productivity and satisfaction of democratic and autocratic leadership. Small Group Research, 25, 384-410.
9.
Haythorn, W. , Couch, A., Haefner, D., Langham, P., & Carter, L. F. (1956). The behavior of authoritarian and equalitarian personalities in groups. Human Relations, 9, 57-73.
10.
Hendrix, W. H. , & McNichols, C. W. (1982). Organizational effectiveness as a function of managerial style, situational environment, and effectiveness criterion. Journal of Experimental Education, 52, 145-151.
11.
Hutchinson, S. , Valentino, K. E., & Kirkner, S. L. (1998). What works for the gander does not work as well for the goose: The effects of leader behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 171-182.
12.
Indik, B. P. (1965). Operational size and member participation: Some empirical tests of alternative explanations. Human Relations, 18, 339-350.
13.
Jackson, S. E. (1992). Team in organizational settings: Issues in managing an increasingly diverse work force. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity (pp. 138-173). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
Jewell, L. N. (1998). Contemporary industrial/organizational psychology. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
15.
Katz, D. (1949). Morale and motivation in industry. In W. Dennis (Ed.), Current trends in industrial psychology (pp. 145-171). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
16.
Kolb, J. A. (1997). Are we still stereotyping leadership? A look at gender and other predictors of leader emergence. Small Group Research, 28, 370-393.
17.
Kushell, E. , & Newton, R. (1986). Gender, leadership style, and subordinate satisfaction: An experiment. Sex Roles, 14, 203-209.
18.
Lewin, K. , Lippit, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates.”Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-279.
19.
Lyle, J. (1961). Communication, group atmosphere, productivity, and morale in small task groups. Human Relations, 14, 369-379.
20.
Meade, R. (1967). An experimental study of leadership in India. Journal of Social Psychology, 72, 35-43.
21.
Meade, R. (1985). Experimental studies of authoritarian and democratic leadership in four cultures: American, Indian, Chinese and Chinese-American. High School Journal, 68, 293-295.
22.
Morse, N. C. , & Reimer, E. (1956). The experimental change of a major organizational variable. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 120-129.
23.
Mullen, B. (1989). Advanced BASIC Meta-analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
Mullen, B. , Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1998). Meta-analysis and the study of group dynamics. Group Dynamics, 2, 213-229.
25.
Mullen, B. , Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3-23.
26.
Mullen, B. , & Rosenthal, R. (1985). BASIC Meta-analysis: Procedures and programs. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
Mullen, B. , Salas, E., & Driskell, J. (1989). Salience, motivation, and artifact as contributors to the relation between participation rate and leadership. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 545-559.
28.
Mullen, B. , Symons, C., Hu, L., & Salas, E. (1989). Group size, leader behavior, and subordinate satisfaction. Journal of General Psychology, 116, 155-170.
29.
Myers, D. G. (1996). Social Psychology (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
30.
Neubert, M. J. (1999). Too much of a good thing or the more the merrier? Exploring the dispersion and gender composition of informal leadership in manufacturing teams. Small Group Research, 30, 635-646.
31.
Page, R. H. , & McGinnies, E. (1959). Comparison of two styles of leadership in small group discussion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 240-245.
32.
Powell, G. N. (1999). Handbook of Gender and Work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
Roberts, K. , Miles, R. E., & Blankenship, L. V. (1968). Organizational leadership satisfaction and productivity: A comparative analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 8, 107-126.
34.
Rogelberg, S. G. , & Rumery, S. M. (1996). Gender diversity, team decision quality, time on task, and interpersonal cohesion. Small Group Research, 27, 79-90.
35.
Rosenbaum, L. L. , & Rosenbaum, W. B. (1971). Morale and productivity consequences of group leadership style, stress, and type of task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 343-348.
36.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
37.
Russell, G. W. (1993). The social psychology of sport. New York: Springer-Verlag.
38.
Schliesman, E. S. (1987). Relationship between the congruence of preferred and actual leader behavior and subordinate satisfaction with leadership. Journal of Sport Behavior, 10, 157-166.
39.
Scontrino, M. P. (1972). The effects of fulfilling and violating group members’ expectations about leadership style. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 118-138.
40.
Shaw, J. B. , & Barrett-Power, E. (1998). The effects of diversity on small work group processes and performance. Human Relations, 51, 1307-1325.
41.
Shaw, M. E. (1955). A comparison of two types of leadership in various communication networks. Sociometry, 37, 38-53.
42.
Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
43.
Slater, P. E. (1958). Contrasting correlates of group size. Sociometry, 21, 129-139.
44.
Snadowsky, A. (1974). Member satisfaction in stable communication networks. Sociometry, 37, 38-53.
45.
Stein, A. H. , & Bailey, M. (1973). The socialization of achievement orientation in females. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 345-366.
46.
Stewart, T. A. (1998, March). Why leadership matters. Fortune, 137, 71-73.
47.
Stitt, C. , Schmidt, S., Price, K., & Kipnis, D. (1983). Sex of leader, leader behavior, and subordinate satisfaction. Sex Roles, 9, 31-42.
48.
Sudolsky, M. , & Nathan, R. (1971). A replication in questionnaire form of an experiment by Lippitt, Lewin, and White concerning conditions of leadership and social climates in groups. Cornell Journal of Social Relations, 4, 188-196.
49.
Tolbert, P. S. , Graham, M. E., & Andrews, A. O. (1999). Group gender composition and work group relations. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp.179-202). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50.
Walker, H. A. , Ilardi, B. C., McMahon, A. C., & Fennell, M. L. (1996). Gender, interaction, and leadership. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 255-272.
51.
Watson, C. (1998). When a woman is the boss: Dilemmas in taking charge. Group & Organization Studies, 13, 163-181.
52.
Webster, M. (1994). Experimental methods. In M. Foschi & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Group processes: Sociological analyses. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
53.
Wood, W. (1987). Meta-analytic review of sex differences in group performance. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 53-71.
