Iowa Leadership Studies

What is Iowa Leadership Studies?

The Iowa Studies of leadership were carried out in the 1939's by Lewin, Lippitt, and White, under the direction of Lewin. This study was set out to identify different styles of leadership and this early study was very influential and established three major leadership styles. This study was done on the task performance of ten-year old boys in three groups.

In the first part of the study adults were trained to act as authoritarian, democratic, or laissez-fair leaders. Later on schoolchildren were assigned to one of three groups with an authoritarian, democratic or laissez-fair leader. The children were then led in an arts and crafts project while researchers observed the behavior of children in response to the different styles of leadership. Performance was measured on amount of and quality of work accomplished. This research has also been used to understand the quality of group decision-making.

The researchers selected boys of the same intelligence level. Each group did the same task of making paper masks or model air-planes or murals or soap carvings. The room used by the three groups remained the same. The three group leaders assumed different styles as they shifted every six weeks from group to group. The researchers under the direction of Lewin, who did several studies on groups, were trying to see how different styles of leadership could change the satisfaction, frustration-aggression levels of the individuals.

The Three Styles of Leadership:

Authoritarian Leaders: Authoritarian leaders provided clear expectations for what needed to be done, when it should be done, and how it should be done.               

Democratic Leaders: Democratic leaders offered guidance to group members, but they also participated in the group and allowed input from other group members.               

Laissez-fair leaders: Laissez-fair leaders offered little or no guidance to group members and left decision-making up to group members.

The Observations and Results of the Study:

Nineteen out of twenty boys like the democratic leadership style. That kind of a leader never tried to boss over them, yet they had plenty, to do. The only boy who liked the authoritarian style of leadership happened to be the son of an army officer. It was also observed that seven out of ten boys preferred the laissez-faire leader to the autocratic one as they preferred confusion and disorder to strictness and rigidity present in the autocratic style. Boys under the latter style exhibited more of aggressive, hostile and indifferent behavior as compared to their counterparts under other styles of leadership. They either showed hostility or cracked jokes about hostility towards others. Others belonging to the democratic style of leadership showed less aggressive and more indifferent behavior when brought under the autocratic style of a leader. Even under the laissez-faire style of the leader, boys committed more aggressive acts than the ones under the democratic style.

Given below are the key takeaways of this study:

Authoritarian Leadership: The authoritarian leader of the group was very directive. He did not allow any participation. He was concerned about the task and told the followers what to do and how to do it. He was friendly while praising the performance of the individual member and was impersonal while criticizing the individual member. Authoritarian leadership is best applied to situations where there is little time for group decision-making or where the leader is the most knowledgeable member of the group.

Laissez-fair leadership: The laissez-faire leader of the third group gave complete freedom to the group and did not provide any leadership. He did not establish any policies or procedures to do the task. Each member was let alone. No one attempted to influence the other.

Laissez-fair leadership was the least effective of all three. In addition, the member of their groups made more demands on them, showed little cooperation, and the group members were unable to work independently.

Delegative leaders offer little or no guidance to group members and leave decision-making up to group members. While this style can be effective in situations where group members are highly qualified in an area of expertise, it often leads to poorly defined roles and a lack of motivation.

Democratic Leadership: In this group, the democratic leader encouraged discussion with the group and allowed participation in making decisions. He shared his leadership responsibilities with his followers and involved them in the planning and execution of the task. Participative leaders encourage group members to participate, but retain the final say over the decision-making process. Group members feel engaged in the process and are more motivated and creative.

The results of these studies found under democratic leadership less work was performed than authoritarian group, but much higher quality was achieved.  In addition, decision making was less creative under authoritarian leadership then under democratic leadership. The researchers concluded that democratic leadership was the most effective form.

Conclusion from Iowa Leadership Studies:

There is no doubt that, a study on ten year old boys in making paper masks or soap carving, etc. cannot be compared to leader behavior of adults with complex jobs. But like the studies of Mayo and Roethlisberger, the studies by Lewin, Lippitt and White are a pioneering effort in understanding leadership styles from the point of scientific methodology. They also throw light on how different styles of leadership can produce different complex reactions from the same or similar groups.