The Group Dynamics Approach to Leadership - Emerald

J. KELLY
Lecturer in Psychology
The University of Strathclyde
The group dynamics approach to leadership
The new social science approach to business behaviour
optimistically assumes that the modern executive has a grounding
in social psychology and its latest sub-division, Group Dynamics.
The origins of Group Dynamics are to be found in the work of
Kurt Lewin who emigrated to the United States in the inter-war
period. Research in group atmosphere and styles of leadership
produced empirical evidence to support the concept of
'democratic' leadership. The 'democratic' leadership of the '30s
and '40s is giving way to a more positive direct form of
leadership. This article might be considered as an obituary
notice for the 'human relations' oriented boss.
Secondly, the article sets out to highlight the part played by
British researchers in the development of Group Dynamics. In
this context, two main sources are considered: the Tavistock
approach with its emphasis on the psychoanalytical approach to
group behaviour, where 'all will be well' when the complex of
forces affecting the individual are made explicit; and the work of
T. T. Paterson, who has developed the subject of methectics
which makes the sources of organisational authority explicit and
spells out the diversity of roles that emerge in the group.
Psychology is a shocking subject in the sense that it hands out
traumas like placebos. The general public had just begun to
realise the advantages of the central Freudian thesis, 'that all
men are cads and, better still, all women are bitches', and the
more sophisticated members of society had mastered the
intricacies of the Oedipus complex, when along came Group
Dynamics, with its insistence that true understanding can only
come from knowing how the group works.
What is group dynamics? The term has gained considerable
popularity, especially since the war, but unfortunately, with its
increasing circulation there has been a certain loss of precision.
According to one view, group dynamics describes the way in
which groups should be organised. Great stress is laid on
democratic leadership, group members participating in decisions
and, above all, the value of co-operative activities in groups. A
second view emphasises the techniques of group dynamics, such
as role playing, brain storming, buzz groups and leaderless
groups which are all used to give training in human relations,
especially for managers. According to a third view, group
dynamics is concerned with gaining knowledge about the
nature of groups, how they develop, and their effect on individual
members, other groups, and larger institutions. The historical
derivation of the term mirrors the history of all good ideas of the
last thirty, years, i.e. born in Europe, but only achieving full
status after emigration to America.
Fired by the success of the concept of dynamics in explanation
of physical and chemical phenomena, German psychologists
tried to extend this approach to the psychological sciences. Much
of the original work was carried out in a displaced persons'
camp in the Tyrol after the first world war. But a more
sympathetic environment was required than Europe in the
inter-war period. Just as the Turks in capturing Constantinople
had sparked off the Renaissance, so the rise of Fascism in
Europe provided the necessary stimulus for many of the
scholars of Germany and Austria to emigrate to the United
States. American Psychology was ripe for this shot in the arm.
Dominated by a sterile behaviourism, with its insistence on an
atomistic and mechanistic explanation of all human activity, the
science of psychology was ready for the holistic approach that
stated that the whole was more than the sum of the parts, that
man was more than a sum of conditioned reflexes and that the
group was more than the sum of the individuals within it.
Something new emerges with the group that did not exist with
the individual. Kurt Lewin coined the term 'Group Dynamics'
to describe this field of investigation.
Cartwright and Zander note that 'By far the most influential
work in the emerging study of group dynamics was that of
Lewin, Lippitt, and White. Conducted at the Iowa Child
Welfare Research Station, between 1937 and 1940, these
investigations of group atmosphere and styles of leadership
accomplished a creative synthesis of the various trends and
developments considered above. In describing the background
of this research, Lippitt noted that the issue of what constitutes
"good" leadership had come to the fore in the professions of
education, social group work, and administration, and he
observed that, with the exception of the Western Electric
studies, remarkably little research had been conducted to help
guide practice in these professions. . . . The basic objective of
this research was to study the influences upon the group as a
whole and upon individual members of certain experimentally
induced "group atmospheres" or "styles of leadership".'
Phrases that were used to describe this research include:
'Laissez-faire was not the same as democracy'; 'Democracy can
be efficient'; 'Autocracy can create much hostility and aggression,
including aggression against scapegoats'; 'Autocracy can create
discontent that does not appear on the surface'; 'There was more
dependence and less individuality in autocracy'; 'There was more
group-mindedness and more friendliness in democracy'. While
Lewin made it clear in his work that there were reservations in
assuming that 'democratic' leadership is the only answer, many
others assumed that they had been provided with a charter which
ordained that the 'employee centred' or 'human relations'
approach to leadership was the way sanctioned by scientific
research. Today, the evidence of empirical research in group
dynamics challenges this optimistic over-simplification.
Leadership is not a twentieth century invention, but its scientific
cultivation is. While leadership, as a topic for pontificating, is
reserved for ageing generals, as a topic for scientific research, it
is being intensively investigated by social psychologists. The
whiplash of empirical examination has punctured many of the
treasured beliefs of experienced managers. These managerial
myths include: instant recognition of the successful candidate as
he makes his entrance, based, of course, on the cut of his jib;
catalogues of personality characteristics of successful executives
which include such traits as analytical (but not too bright),
aggressive (acceptable at all levels in the organisation) extraverted
(but must have perceptive insights into his own behaviour, i.e.
introverted), etc. On this latter point of the personality of the
leaders, many studies have been undertaken. But, on the whole,
these approaches have proved disappointing. Researchers surveying
the literature have produced long lists of personality traits
which distinguish leaders from non-leaders. Unfortunately, only
five per cent of the discovered traits were common to four or
more investigations.
In one survey it was shown that the various studies of the traits
of leaders result in contradictory findings. When personnel
managers are discussing with other executives the kind of
person who can fill a management vacancy, certain terms,
62 Technical Education, February 1965
© Emerald Backfiles 2007

irrespective of function or level, keep cropping up with
monotonous regularity, e.g. analytical, decisive, determined,
acceptable, etc, thus indicating that most managers still accept
the personality-trait approach.
Why has the personality-trait approach failed ? One explanation
that has been suggested is that neither personality nor personality
traits are clearly understood or are capable of accurate measurement.
Again, it may be important to ascertain how the executive
position was achieved.
Executive appointments may be made on the basis of managerial
potential, but they may also be made on the basis of technical
competence, seniority, kinship, lack of managerial potential,
membership of a particular educational, military or religious
organisation or any other form of nepotism. So a different
approach is required.
The leadership syndrome
A good starting point for understanding leadership is provided
by accepting that leadership follows, a particular fashion, which
changes with variations in the political and economic climate.
Or, if you like, each society has a pattern of leadership symptoms.
Three such leadership syndromes have been identified. The
first, the machine theory of organisation, is usually associated
with the name of Frederick Winslow Taylor. Taylorism treats
the worker primarily as an economic animal, is obsessed with the
scientific measure of a fair day's work and pays little or no heed
to the human aspect of work. This approach views the human
agent exclusively as an instrument. The reaction to the excesses
of Taylorism produced the second approach, known as the
Human Relations School, which is usually linked with Elton
Mayo and his Hawthorne Experiment. He argued that an
industrial organisation should be viewed as a social system
which has two main functions, 'that of producing a product and
that of creating and disttibuting satisfaction among the individual
members of the organisation'. The former - described as the
economic function — was, in his opinion adequately developed
in industry; the latter, on the other hand, which is concerned
with developing good human relations in the firm, he regarded
as inadequately developed. In turn, the Human Relations
School is being superseded by the Task Approach. In the Task
Approach, which is associated with the name of Wilfred Brown,
the chairman of the Glacier Metal Company, 'the work to be
done and the resources available, both technical and human,
determine the method of work to be employed'.
The first body-blow to the Society devoted to Human Relations
was delivered in Korea. The crunch came when Human
Relations was confronted by Task Management. In the prison
camps, the Americans came out worst, the Turks best. Some
said it was because the Turks shaved every day. Anyone who
underestimates the strength of the film, of the democratic belief
in the American mind, reinforced by the propaganda power of
Hollywood should consider the following situations. There is a
curious parallel between the movie Warden of the penitentiary
going out to talk to the rioting prisoners and the American
General going in, unescorted to talk to the North Korean
prisoners. But the analogy breaks down when the North Korean
prisoners kidnap the American General. The Agonising
Reappraisal had started. The fifty-mile hikers were just around
the corner. But worse was to come.
If Korea was bad, the Sputniks were infinitely worse. So insecure
were the Americans with the Russians' successes in satellite
launchings, that the acts of conspicuous consumption became
less conspicuous - compare the success of the compacts during
this era of Russian dominance. It is alleged that the big cars got
smaller and the chrome got less. Certainly, the American
upper-middle brow public was fed a dreary semi-scientific
diet of literary exposes, in which the organisation man, the
status seeker, the hidden persuaders were dissected. The scene
had been set for the new hero - the task specialist.
Finally, while this debate on leadership has been raging in
American management literature, there has been scant evidence
published in British journals showing an awareness of this
organisational metamorphosis. Research by the writer using a
technique of activity sampling to study the behaviour of
industrial executives has confirmed Fiedler's portrait of the
efficient executive.
In spite of this lack of research in Britain in executive leadership,
our society seems to have developed the social paraphernalia
that facilitates the emergence of the task specialist. Consider the
function of television which, it is argued, does not initiate trends,
but confirms, and makes explicit, the extant forces. In the
language of the Wasteland, Barlow is the task specialist out to
get a conviction at any price and Dixon is the Human Relations
Specialist. Understandable, while the Police prefer Dixon, the
public prefer Barlow. 'Task speak', the language of the new
leadership, uses phrases such as, 'that's how the cookie crumbles'
to describe not a person getting his just rewards, but rather to
describe the inevitable consequences of a particular depersonalised
strategy. Or again, much of 'Task speak' is concerned with
developing the language of Meritocracy as derived from snakes
and ladders. Phrases such as 'You start in square one', 'Getting
a Ph.D. or a pub will get you up a ladder to square 13'. While
the less sophisticated have a snakes and ladders model, the more
sophisticated use the theory of games language (only), such as
minimax, optimal strategies, zero sum game, and so on. Thus,
through some curious social alchemy, society has read the
obituary notices concerning the demise of democratic leadership.
In preparation for his resurrection as a task specialist, society is
preparing the necessary facilities, including a language, an
appropriate model and suitable myths. Organisational research
will chronicle the event objectively. The O.K. guy will get in
on the ground floor, i.e. get on the board.
The Tavistock approach
The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations has provided the
necessary theoretical constructs to enable the Glacier Metal
Company to establish a theoretical basis for its management
operations. Therefore, it is particularly important to examine the
contributions of this Institute to the work of social scientists in
industry. The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations developed
from the Tavistock Clinic, which from its earliest days has
always had an interest in the psychoanalytical approach to
psychotherapy. As well as drawing its concepts from the field of
psychoanalysis, many of the conceptual models have developed
from the holistic approach to human problems - Gestalt
psychology, Kurt Lewin's field theory, the functional anthropology
of Malinowski, and the open system theory of von
Bertalanffy. Inherent in this approach is the acceptance of the
complexity of interacting forces at work in any situation. This
complex of forces may involve personal, social and historical
factors. Implicit in this view is a reluctance to accept that chance
can enter significantly as an explanation as to why an organisation
developed in a particular way. This demands an approach that is
dynamic rather than static.
Again, even a cursory examination of the professions from which
the staff of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations are
recruited, shows that they accept that problems rarely present
themselves to investigators neatly parcelled according to
academic function. Thus, in the Institute, you will find
psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, statistitians and
economists working in teams exploiting a multi-disciplinary
approach in tackling a particular problem.
Lewin's Field Theory
Research workers of the Tavistock Institute readily acknowledge
their debt of gratitude to Kurt Lewin. Lewin's most important
work was done in the '30s after he had left Germany for the
United States. Influenced by his mathematical training and his
association with the Gestalt psychologists, he tried to develop
his ideas about group dynamics in terms of vectors. He
introduced the concept of life space. Life space refers to the
Technical Education, February 1965 63
© Emerald Backfiles 2007

whole system of the group and its environment; this includes the
real aspects of the individuals' personalities, the physical
environment, the individuals' concepts of one another, and the
unreal elements, including their hopes, fears, ambitions, etc.
Individual group members have goals which they desire to
achieve. By moving towards these goals, they may gain release
from tension. A group is viewed as a field of forces which is in
a state of equilibrium.
Bion's contribution
Based on his experience of the War Office Selection Board and
his experience with group therapy at the Tavistock Clinic, Bion
developed a psycho-dynamic approach which has proved
valuable not only in the clinical setting. Elliott Jaques has
applied Bion's technique of 'working through a problem' to
gain insights into the attitudes and beliefs of the participants in
industrial organisations.
According to Bion, when a group is brought together, it goes
through a period of confusion before it settles down to the
actual task. How successful it is in solving the problem depends
on the group's sophistication. If the group is sophisticated and
mature, it will deal with the realities of the situation and 'work
through' to a solution. On the other hand, the less sophisticated
groups are likely to respond emotionally to stress. They may
respond - by fight or flight reaction, by dependency, or by
pairing. Bion's techniques were extensively used in the early
stages of the Glacier experiment.
Socio-technical system
There is a growing recognition that simple statements of the
enterprise's objectives are no longer possible. The proposition
that a firm exists simply to make a profit is no longer generally
accepted. There is a realisation that the enterprise has a number
of tasks that include social and personal objectives, even if these
only exist as limitations and constraints. The term 'mission' has
been suggested as a single name for this complex of tasks. To
develop this argument further, the Tavistock workers have
developed the concept of the socio-technical system. Trist and
Bamforth as a result of their study of the introduction of the
mechanised long-wall system of mining did the early work in the
development of the socio-technical theory. The socio-technical
system is concerned with the interaction between the technical
aspects and social aspects of the problem. Rice, in 'Productivity
and Social Organisation', continues more generally: 'The
concept of a production system as a socio-technical system
designates a general field of study concerned with the interrelations
of the technical and socio-psychological organisation of
industrial production systems. . . . The concept of a sociotechnical
system arose from the consideration that any production
system requires both a technological organisation - equipment
and process layout - and a work organisation relating to each
other those who carry out the necessary tasks. The technological
demands place limits on the type of work organisation possible,
but a work organisation has social and psychological properties
of its own that are independent of technology. ... A sociotechnical
system must also satisfy the financial conditions of the
industry of which it is a part. It must have economic dimensions,
all of which are interdependent, but all of which have independent
values of their own.'
It has been further argued that a more comprehensive picture of
an enterprise will be gained by viewing it as an open sociotechnical
system. This assumes that an organisation both
operates on the environment and is influenced by the environment.
Open system theory, which is based on the work of the
biologist von Bertalanffy, has been developed by Trist et al.
The system of structural authority
T. T. Paterson has analysed the sources of authority and has
developed the subject of Methectics, which he defines as the
study of participation in group life in terms of bestowed and
adopted roles. In this scheme, five forms of authority are
recognised depending upon the purpose of the group and the
organisation of its functions. These five forms are structural,
sapiential, moral, charismatic, and personal. Structural authority
has a right springing from legal or other contract which is
'vested in an office' in the organisation and therefore in the
manager holding that post. Structural authority enables the
manager to organise and control the work of others and requires
obedience from other members of the group. In some circumstances,
structural authority may be thought of as identical with
line authority. Sapiential authority is the entitlement or right to
be heard by virtue of knowledge or expertise. 'It is wrong to
assume that when an individual is vested with structural
authority that he is necessarily vested with sapiential authority'.
The personnel manager has sapiential authority in so far as he
had the necessary knowledge of personnel management, which
he can use to improve the efficiency of the organisation.
'Moral authority is the entitlement to control and direct by
reason of "rightness" or "goodness" in action according to the
contractual system (ethos) of the enterprise'. Managers often
seek moral authority by emphasising the fairness of the proposals
which they are advancing. The 'fair' manager will always
attempt to back up his structural authority with moral authority.
Charismatic authority is the right to lead when the source of
reference is supernatural. Many managers exploit this charismatic
authority when they assume the role of the father figure and develop
an aura of omnipotence and omniscience. Personal authority
is the right to command or lead by virtue of the fittingness of
personality with the purpose of the enterprise. As a general rule,
personal authority should not and cannot replace structural
authority, though in some circumstances it may do so.
In the informal group, he identified the following roles: the
exemplar, who sets the group norms; the exdominus who is the
group's external representative, the indominus who controls
internal relationships, the eccentric, who represents a different
point of view but can be the scapegoat or clown, the mimetic
who follows the other roles and the isolate who is not a member
of the 'group proper'.
Weiss has observed that the leader should not assign work to
anyone who lacks the structural authority to perform his tasks,
and he quotes the illustration where an accounting task was
assigned to an engineering executive, which may have the effect
of rupturing relationships between the chief engineer and the
chief accountant. In this example the engineer would also be
lacking sapiential authority.
Limitations and criticisms
The critics of Group Dynamics have concentrated on three
aspects. It has been held that human behaviour is not subject to
laws like the physical sciences, that social phenomena cannot be
quantified and that experimentation on groups is immoral.
W. H. Whyte in his study of 'The Organisation Man' has
defined scientism as 'the promise that with the same techniques
that have worked in the physical sciences, we can eventually
create an exact science of man'. He believes that scientism as part
of the American social ethic is undermining the strength of her
rugged individuality. It is with a certain quiet satisfaction that
most executives in this country view this situation - without
realising the consequences of their desire for higher living
standards which in turn, requires higher productivity, dependent
often on the application of American management techniques.
These techniques require that group behaviour is not only predictable
but measurable. The moral argument is more difficult to
meet, especially when the research is conducted without the permission
of the participants. This was illustrated by an experiment
in America where the deliberations of the jury were recorded
without the knowledge of the jurors, but with the permission of
the judge. In conclusion, Group Dynamics represents the
advance of science into another human area, that of the group.
By itself, it is intrinsically neither bad nor good. Society, to
protect itself from the charge of culpable ignorance, must
inform itself of the principles and practices of Group Dynamics.
Technical Education, February 1965 65
© Emerald Backfiles 2007