DIFFERENCES IN COMMUNECATEON BEHAVIORS 0F AUTHORiTAREAN AND DEMGCRATlC LEADERS Thesis for the Degree of M. A MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY James Franklin Sargent 1987 ABSTRACT DIFFERENCES IN COMMUNICATION BEHAVIORS OF AUTHORITARIAN AND DEMOCRATIC LEADERS by James Franklin Sargent In prior research on leadership style, authoritarian and democratic styles have been investigated most extensively. Difficulties in con— ceptually and operationally defining these leadership styles have often arisen. A major purpose of this study was to determine whether democratic and authoritarian leaders differ systematically in certain communication behaviors. Such differences may provide useful means of distinguishing the two styles. Subjects were 4-H Club leaders in Montana. Subjects were classified as democratic or authoritarian leaders on the basis of their reaponses to a paired comparison questionnaire and a seven-step-scale form developed for this study. Subjects then led a discussion with their club members on topics related to the organization. All meetings were tape recorded, and the communication behaviors of the leader were content analyzed. There were twenty-one leaders in both the authoritarian and the democratic . groups. Following the discussions, a measure of member satisfaction was obtained from the group members. All statements were categorized into one of the four major categories used by Bales.l In addition, statements that: (l) encouraged participation; James Franklin Sargent (2) expanded the member's thinking through questions, alternatives, or speculations; and (3) related the discussion to the purposes of u-H in general were studied. The total number of words spoken by leaders during equalized periods of time was also analyzed. For all statistical tests, the .05 level of significance was utilized. Of the 13 hypotheses developed in the study, seven were supported.by the data, two approached significance (p<(.lO), and four were not supported. Percentage agreement indices indicated that the coding was consistent within the content analytic systems used in the study. All four of the hypotheses related to task area communications were supported. Authoritarian leaders made significantly more attempts to offer answers to the discussion questions. Democratic leaders phrased significantly more of their contributions to the group in the form of questions. In other words, authoritarian leaders more frequently offered solutions to the problems; while democratic leaders more frequently assisted the group in finding a group solution. Both leadership styles made few statements classified in the Social-Emotional categories. When compared to total Social-Emotional statements, authoritarian leaders made significantly more negative Social-Emotional communications than did the democratic leaders. A hypothesis that democratic leaders would make a higher ratio of positive Social-Emotional statements, when compared with total statements, approached significance, Cp<<.10). Two other hypotheses related to Social-Emotional reactions were not supported. Democratic leaders made significantly more attempts to encourage participation in the discussion by group members. They offered James Franklin Sargent significantly more contributions to the group in the form of questions, alternatives, or speculations. A hypothesis that democratic leaders would make more statements relating the discussion to group purposes or objectives was not supported. Due to extreme variability in quantity of communication in both groups, a hypothesis that authoritarian leaders would engage in more communication just fell short of significance. A hypothesis that greater member satisfaction would be associated with democratic leadership was not supported. This study, then, demonstrates that authoritarian and democratic leaders differ in several dimensions of leadership communication behavior. In general, the differences are consistent with theoretic expectations and reflect varying commitments to particular dimensions of group process. R. F. Bales, Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Social Groups (Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1950). DIFFERENCES IN COMMUNICATION BEHAVIORS OF AUTHORITARIAN AND DEMOCRATIC LEADERS By James Franklin Sargent A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Communication 1967 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am particularly indebted to Dr. Gerald R. Miller, who not only served as my advisor for this degree, but also encouraged me to develop and conduct this study. His assistance and suggestions were invaluable in making this a worthwhile and meaningful undertaking. I am also indebted to Dr. Verling C. Troldahl and Dr. Mason E. Miller, who also served on my committee. Their guidance and suggestions also assisted in the development and completion of this study. I also wish to acknowledge the assistance of County Extension Agents in Montana who assisted in administering questionnaires and in tape recording meetings. Their cooperation was a major factor in the completion of this study. I am also indebted to Frank Carter and Mrs. Patricia Sias, County Extension Agents at Helena, Montana, who served as coders. They Spent hours in learning the coding systems and in coding statements. Finally, I am indebted to my wife, Alice, who has also assisted in the many hours of work necessary to complete this study and this degree. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O l Authoritarian Leadership Democratic Leadership Basic Characteristics of the Two Leadership Styles Hypotheses II ETHOD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 l7 Manipulation of the Independent Variable The Final Questionnaire Procedures Dependent Measures III RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 28 Reliability Check Test of the Hypotheses Hypotheses Dealing with Social-Emotional Reactions Other Content Analytic Hypotheses Member Satisfaction Hypothesis Iv DISCUSSION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O 0 O 0 ”0 Authoritarian Leadership The Task Area and Social-Emotional Hypotheses Member Satisfaction Differentiation of Leadership Types Implications for Future Research BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 5‘4 APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 56 iii LIST OF TABLES Table ngg_ 1 Distribution of Questionnaire Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2 Percentage Agreement Indices for the Coder Reliability Checks 28 3 Means and Standard Deviations for the Authoritarian and Democratic Leaders by Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 u A Comparison of the Use of Task Area Statements (B - At- tempted Answers and C - Questions) During the First Ten Minutes of Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 5 A Comparison of Democratic and Authoritarian Leaders on Giving Orders to Talk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 6 Summary of Results of Tests of Content Analytic Hypotheses . . 39 iv LIST OF APPENDICES Page Form Used in Pretesting to Select Paired Comparison Items for the Final Questionnaim O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O 56 Form Used in Pretesting to Select Seven Interval Scale Items for the Final Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Final Questionnaire Used for the Independent Variable . . . . 62 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The phenomenon of leadership has interested social scientists and laymen alike. The term, leader, implies follower; leadership implies fbllowership. Leader-follower relationships develop whenever two or more people interact in pursuit of common goals or objectives. The leader-follower relationship is characterized by the exertion of influence by one group member over one or more other members. Differential exercise of power characterizes all a3pects of social life. In the past, some theorists have related leadership to possession and exercise of coercive authority. Few contemporary theorists would maintain that leaders of groups and organizations in modern society rely primarily on coercion, yet any realistic assessment of group life must recognize that leadership inevitably involves the ability to influence other people in some way. Even in the most informal group or organization leaders in- fluence the course of action significantly. The ideological conflicts which dominate the thinking about social issues are partly a matter of attitudes toward authority and leadership. The meaning of both totalitarianism and democracy may be eXpressed in terms of leadership phenomena. Leadership style has been the object of much interest, particularly during the last twO or three decades. Numerous researchers have studied various leadership styles and their effects on the performance and maintenance of a group or organization. Authoritarian and democratic leadership, in various forms, are the two most common leadership styles that have been imposed upon experimental groups. Research into various styles of leadership began with the classic studies of Lewin, Lippitt, and White.1 In order to study the effect of different leadership styles on children, groups containing democratic, autocratic, and laissez-faire leaders were created. In general, these investigators concluded that democratic leadership led to higher group morale and better productivity. Since that time, a number of researchers have studied related situations, both in the laboratory and in the field. Leadership styles have been studied both as independent and as dependent variables. A variety of terms have been used in referring to the style of leadership: positive - negative, supervisory - participatory, democratic - non- democratic, authoritarian - non-authoritarian, leader-centered 5 group- centered. All of these terms are defined similarly to Lewin, Lippitt and White's conceptualization of them. Because leadership_is a complex concept, it is not surprising that difficulties have arisen in defining the term. Gibb concludes that by far the most common form of classification has been in terms of leadership style or manner of exerting influence.2 lRalph K. White and Ronald O. Lippitt, Autocragy and Democracy (New York: Harper 8 Bros., 1960), pp. 1-310. 2 . . Gardner Lindzey (ed.), Handbook of Soc1al Psychology (Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., lQSfl), p. 908. The terms generally used to designate the opposing poles of this continuum are autocratic and democratic. A major purpose of this study is to determine whether leaders at these opposing poles differ systematically in certain dimensions of their communication behavior with other group members. In general, it is assumed that such differences in communication behavior may provide one useful means of distinguishing democratic and authoritarian leaders. Although the authoritarian-democratic dichotomy is used in this study, it is important to emphasize that such a dichotomy over- simplifies the notion of leadership styles. The study of leadership styles demonstrates that multiple interrelationships are involved. Nevertheless, studies of leadership using the authoritarian-democratic dichotomy have added to our understanding of the phenomena of leadership and can continue to make further contributions. Authoritarian Leadership_ The authoritarian leader can be described as one who determines all policy, is directive, is production-centered, is personal in praise and criticism, and remains aloof from the group much of the time. This type of leader remains the focus of group attention and maintains control of the communication channels. Thus, he occupies a key position in relation to all group action.1 In our society the term authoritarian often has a negative connotation. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that authoritarian 1 White and Lippitt, pp. 26-27. leadership conflicts with the traditional democratic values. Even so, some studies have revealed instances in which an authoritarian type of leadership was highly valued, morale was high, and there was a high level 0 o O 1 of satisfaction and coheSiveness. Democratic Leadership_ Democratic leadership is essentially the antithesis of authoritarianism. Basically, this style of leadership involves satisfactions and mutual respect among all the group members and the leader. The democratic leader is one who encourages group discussion and decision, offers alternatives, participates in activities, and is objective in praise and criticism.2 Relationships among the various extremes of leadership styles are complex and depend not only upon the kind of task that is involved, but also upon the type of group or organization. If group members anticipate a democratic organizational structure, as is true with children's clubs, discussion groups, and most educational settings, then the democratic style is usually most effective. However, in the military and in industry, where members anticipate a forceful leadership style, then a more authoritarian style usually is superior. Gibb says: In general, it can be said that emerging leadership in tem- porary groups is more democratic, more permissive, and less 1R. C. Ziller, "Communication Restraints, Group Flexibility, and Group Confidence," Journal of Applied Psychology, XLII (1958), 3‘1'5-52 o 2 . . . White and Lippitt, pp. 26-27. dominant (a) when the situation is one in which no member can feel himself more competent than others, (b) when appropriate techniques of communication are not known or not well under- stood, and (c) when the situation arouses strong attitudes regarding the private rights of all group members. Conversely, emergent leadership is more authoritarian, more dictatorial, and more restrictive when (a) speed and efficiency are empha- sized to the point of outweighing the formalities, and (b) when the novelty of the situation for each member precludes, so that he does not interpret direction as being in any way critical of his ability. If the group is faced with a need for emergency action, then that leader behavior is most effective which is prompt and decisive and which is perceived by the members as likely to remove quickly the threats in the situation. Author- itarian leadership is practically demanded under such circum- stances. It is important, then, to recognize that there is a place for both styles of leadership, that they are really values of a variable on a continuum, and that neither is entirely "good" nor entirely "bad." Authoritarian leadership often results in higher productivity and democratic leadership in higher morale.2 Much of the research has tended to endorse the democratic leadership style, but it has already been pointed out that this endorsement is obviously in accord with our basic value system. Basic Characteristics of the Two Leadership Styles A review of the literature indicates that some rather basic notions are associated with each style of leadership. Some of the characteristics that are commonly associated with the democratic leader are as follows: 1. A concern that each group member has an opportunity to l Lindzey, p. 911. 2White and Lippitt, p. 87. influence decisions in accordance with his abilities and with his desires. Gibb found that democratic leadership was associated with freedom of expression.1 Preston and Heintz assert that democratic leader- ship requires an atmosphere that will encourage the followers to participate significantly in the formation of group policy.2 Likert states that a democratic leadership style involves "giving the group members ample Opportunity to express their thoughts without being "3 Thus, the democratic constrained by the leader pressing his own views. leader would be expected to encourage group participation. In terms of his communication behavior, the democratic leader should attempt to provide opportunity for those who are not expressing their Opinions to do so; e.g., through questions such as, "What do you think about that idea?" or, "Has everyone expressed his opinion?" 2. A concern for the evaluation of relevant alternatives. In the Lippitt and White studies, a basic characteristic of the democratic leader was that he "suggested two or more alternatives from which choice could be made."u The democratic leader would be expected to ask such questions as, "Have you considered this aspect?" or, "What are some other ways to do this?" or, "Let's consider the advantages and the disadvantages 1C. A. Gibb, "An Experimental Approach to the Study of Leadership," Occupational Psychology, XXV (1951), 2H6. M. G. Preston and R. K. Heintz, "Effects of Participatory versus Supervisory Leadership on Group Judgment," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLIV (19u9) ans-55. 3 . . RenSis Likert, New Patterns of Management (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961) p. 171. u White and Lippitt, p. 26. of each idea." 3. A concern that the group reach their own decision rather than merely reinforce the leader's preferred decision. While the democratic leader may assist the group in reaching a decision, he would be eXpected to alert the group to the fact that the final decision is their reSponsibility. Likert has described this as "being careful never to impose a decision Upon the group-"1 Thus, communication fo the "Here's what I think best" variety should be largely shunned by the democratic leader. u. A concern to stimulate thinking by making many of his statements to the group in the form of questions or choices among_alternatives. Likert has described this characteristic of the democrat as "putting his contributions often in the form of questions or stating them Speculatively."2 It would include statements such as "I've been wondering ..." or, "Do you think that possibly this would work?" 5. A greater concern for group maintenance than for group production. Pfiffner and Sherwood see the democratic leader "as being concerned with employee welfare first and production second."3 Likert expresses the same basic idea a bit differently, characterizing the democrat as "never being impatient with progress being made by the group, particularly on difficult l . Likert, p. 171. 2Likert, p. 171. 3J. M. Pfiffner and F. P. Sherwood, Administrative Organization (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1960), p. 364. problems."l Thus, the democratic leader would be expected to let the group know that it is important to devote adequate time to the socio- emotional needs of group members even if production goals must suffer in the process. In addition, his communication behavior should reflect this concern; e.g., "Let's not be too hard on him." or, "Let's be sure that everyone has a chance to take part even if we don't finish all of them." 6. A concern for helping theggroup to clarify the_grogp_goals. Berkowitz says that "we may define a democratic group as one in which many members may influence the group in the course of its goal setting and goal achievements."2 In his analysis of the Lippitt and White research, Verba notes that the democratic leader operates in a "broad time persPective;" thus, members have a clear conception of group goals.3 That is, group members would see the current task or problem in relation to the larger group purpose. The democratic leader would also be concerned with helping the group to understand the "why" of the current task. This concern may be reflected in such statements as "That is consistent with our motto, isn't it?" or, "That's why we are in this club, isn't it?" 7. A concern for group_maintenance and positive affective relations within the group. The democratic leader would be expected to help the lLikert, p. 171. 2 A. P. Hare, E. F. Borgatta, and R. F. Bales, Small Groups: Studies in Social Interaction (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1955), pp. EMS-555. 3Sidney Verba, Small Groups and Political Behavior (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1961), p. 209. ' group to direct tension-filled interactions into ultimate group cohesiveness. He would be concerned that membership in the group not only results in progress toward attainment of group goals, but also that the experiences of group membership are satisfying to members. This idea may be reflected in the leader's communication behavior through such statements as "It's ’ good to have many opinions, just as long as we can all work together once we decide what we want our club to do." or, "It is important that we learn to get along with the others in our club." Authoritarian Leadership 1. A concern for efficientgroupgproductiv'ty. Gibb, like many other researchers, has found that "group efficiency is related with more authoritarian direction."1 The authoritarian may be concerned, for example, that a task be completed with as little wasted time as possible. As such, he may direct tasks without giving total explanation to the group; e.g., "Let's get this done now and we will talk about it later." or, "We've got to get this job completed first." 2. A concern for achieving his own preferred outcomes. Basic to Lippitt and White's operational definition is that the autocratic leader makes all policy decisions.2 Preston and Heintz state "authoritarian techniques require the leader to assume a directive, determining role in . . 3 the formation 0f group POIlGY- The authoritarian leader may reflect l . . Gibb, Occupational Psychology, XXV, 247. 2White and Lippitt, p. 26. 3 Preston and Heintz, pp. ans-55. 10 this concern through such statements as "Let's go ahead with it this way." or, "It seems to me that this is the way to do it." 3. A concern that his viewPoints are represented or understood in discussions. The authoritarian leader may discount or limit opposing views while also giving support to his own. White and Lippitt state that "autocracy here implies a high degree of control by the leader without much freedom by the members or participation by them in group decisions."1 This may be reflected in his communication behavior through such statements as, "NO, I think it is important that we do it this way." or, "I am sure that is right." H. A concern for the control of the major communications interactions of the group. Gibb says "the authoritarian leader must remain the focus of group attention and he must maintain control Of communication channels, thus occupying the key position in relation to all action."2 This need to remain at the center of the communication network could result in such statements as; "I would like to meet with this committee on Monday." or, "Joe, could I see the report as soon as you have completed it?" 5. A concern for the control of the knowledge necessary to achieve the goals. In their Operational definition of authoritarian leadership, Lippitt and White included, "techniques and activity steps dictated by authority, one at a time, so that future steps were always uncertain 1 Ibid., p. 12. 2 O Lindzey, p. 909. 11 to a large degree."1 Verba also supports this control of knowledge characteristic, pointing out that the autocratic leader would offer step- by-step leadership.2 The control of knowledge reinforces the concern for control of the communication networks and the concern for efficient _ group production. This concern may be reflected in the communication behavior of the leader through such statements as "We are now ready to take up the next part." or, "We will do this much before I read the rest of the statement." 6. A concern for fast action if he deems it necessary, A concern for fast action, when deemed necessary is consistent with an authoritarian leader's interest in production, his control of communication channels, his control of knowledge, and his control of the activities of the group. This concern might be reflected in his communication behavior through such statements as "Our time is about up, let's go ahead this way." or, "I am sorry that you could not be here, but this is the action that we took." Leadership and Communication Most, if not all, of the attributes that are included for both the authoritarian and the democratic leaders are related to the way the leader communicates to and with the group. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of communication in group behavior. Gibb defines communi- cation as the process by which one person influences another. He also points out that the term organization implies some restriction or at least 1 White and Lippitt, p. 26. 2Verba, p. 209. 12 patterning of communication such that some communication channels are more readily available than others.1 While there has been considerably research concerning leadership styles, a basic question that remains unanswered concerns the communication patterns of the authoritarian and the democratic leader. This study is an attempt to isolate Specific communication characteristics of the democratic and the authoritarian style of leadership. A clearer differentiation of these two styles has theoretic significance for the social scientist. If differing communication characteristics can be more specifically identified, then it may be possible to formulate clearer operational distinctions between democratic and authoritarian group leaders. Such clarification should in turn provide the means fOr a more meaningful and manipulable concept for research purposes. Researchers have had difficulty in achieving these leadership styles or in identifying them. The purpose, then, of this study is to attempt to identify relevant differences in the communication patterns of democratic and authoritarian leadership styles. In addition to possible theoretic contributions to leadership theory, this study has a potential for the layman. The importance Of a more thorough understanding of leadership can not be overestimated in our present day society. Isolation of relevant communication patterns of the two syncs would aid in training people to guide groups more successfully. The ideas are important to people in management and in human relations. 1Lindzey, p. 898. l3 Hypotheses If it is true that the authoritarian leader must maintain control of the communication interactions of the group and if this leadership style creates more dependence and less individuality, then the authoritarian leader may engage in more communication than the democratic leader. Hypothesis No. 1 Total Communication Index. This index refers to the total amount of communication engaged in by the leader. It is measured in the number of words spoken by the leader during equal and Specific periods of time. Hypothesis: A (authoritarian leader) is greater than D (democratic leader). Robert F. Bales has developed a method for analyzing group interactions.l One of his objectives was to develop a general set of categories that would be applicable to a wide range of situations. He included twelve categories of statements, divided into four different areas: A. Social-Emotional Area: Positive Reactions. B. Task Area: Attempted Answers. C. Task Area: Questions. D. Social-Emotional Area: Negative Reactions. Much of the research on leadership styles emphasizes the authoritarian leader's concern with efficiency and with high production. This leads us to eXpect that the authoritarian would make more task- lR. F. Bales, Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups (Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1950). 11+ oriented statements than would the democratic leader. The authoritarian leader's concern for his own preferred outcomes in decisions or production as well as for control Of the process of decision-making would also lead us to hypothesize that these leaders would make a higher ratio of Bales' "Task Area: Attempted Answers" statements than would the democratic leader. Since the democratic leader has a high concern for group maintenance and for positive affective relations within the group, this type of leader should make a higher ratio of Bales' "Social-Emotional Area: Positive Reactions." Hypothesis No. 2 Positive Social-Emotional References. This index refers to the ratio of statements classified as "Social-Emotional State- ments: Positive Reactions" to total statements. Hypothesis: D is greater than A. Hypothesis No. 3 Positive SocialcEmotional Emphasis. This index refers to the ratio of statements classified as "Social-Emotional State- ments: Positive Reactions" to total Social-Emotional statements. Hypothesis: D is greater than A. Hypothesis No. u Negative Social-Emotional References. This index refers to the ratio of statements classified as "Social-Emotional Statements: Negative Reactions" to total statements. Hypothesis: A is greater than D. Hypothesis No. 5 Negative Social-Emotional Emphasis. This index refers to the ratio of statements classified as "Social-Emotional 15 statements: Negative Reactions" to total Social-Emotional statements. Hypothesis: A is greater than D. The democratic leader's desire to involve all members in discussion and decision-making suggests that these leaders should make a higher ratio of statements that could be called "attempts to encourage participation." Similarly, when compared with the authoritarian, we would expect a higher ratio of "attempts to encourage consideration of alternatives and evaluation of them." The style of the democratic leader also implies that he would make a higher ratio of statements in the form of "questions, alternatives or speculations" than would the authoritarian leader. Another difference attributed to the two leadership styles is in relation to emphasis on overall group goals or purposes. It is hypothesized that the democratic leader would make more "attempts to discuss problems in relation to overall group goals or purposes." Hypothesis No. 6 Participation Encouragement Index. This index refers to the percent of statements encouraging participation in the discussion. Hypothesis: D is greater than A. Hypothesis NO. 7 Questions, Alternatives, Speculations Index. This index refers to the number of statements that involve questions, a1- ternatives, or Speculations. Hypothesis: D is greater than A. Hypothesis No. 8 Group Purpose Index. This index refers to the number of statements that relate the discussion to overall group purpose 16 or objectives. Hypothesis: D is greater than A. Hypothesis No. 9 Attempted Task Answers. This index refers to the ratio of statements classified as "Task Area: Attempted Answers" to total statements. Hypothesis: A is greater than D. Hypothesis No. 10 Attempted Task Answer Emphasis. This index refers to the ratio of statements classified as "Task Area: Attempted Answers" to the total number of statements in both Task Areas (Attempted Answers and Questions). Hypothesis: A is greater than D. Hypothesis No. 11 Questions. This index refers to the ratio of statements classified as "Task Area: Questions" to total statements. Hypothesis: D is greater than A. Hypothesis No. 12 Questions Emphasis. This index refers to the ratio of statements classified as "Task Area: Questions" to the total number of statements in both Task Areas (Attempted Answers and Questions). Hypothesis: D is greater than A. Hypothesis No. 13 Member Satisfaction. This index refers to the satisfaction of the members with the discussion. Hypothesis: D is greater than A. CHAPTER II METHOD The subjects of this study were u-H Club leaders in Montana. They were classified as democratic or authoritarian leaders on the basis of their reSponses to a paired comparison questionnaire and a seven-step scale form developed for this study. Those who were selected led a discussion with their club members on topics related to u-H Club work. All of the meetings were tape-recorded and the communication behaviors of the leaders were analyzed. Measuring the Independent Variable In order to identify democratic and authoritarian leaders, four measuring instruments were develOped and pretested. Statements for these measuring instruments were derived from the characteristics of authoritarian and democratic leaders discussed in Chapter I. One Of the trial instruments used a paired comparison technique. The re3pondent indicated a choice between two statements describing various a3pects of group leadership. Each pair contained one statement reflecting an authoritarian characteristic and one reflecting a democratic characteristic. Each of six authoritarian statements was compared with each of six democratic statements, making a total of 36 pairs of statements. Some examples of the statements develOped from the characteristics of a democratic leader are as follows: 17 18 To ask questions that will cause the members to do more thinking. To discuss both the strong and the weak points of different solutions. To give everyone a chance to express his opinion. To assist the group in getting along well together. To let the members reach a decision all by themselves. To help the members see how the discussion is related to the purpose of the group. Statements derived from the characteristics of an authoritarian leader are as follows: To give new information when you feel the members are ready for it. To assign members to tasks so more can be accomplished. To help the group to what you think is their best answer. To know what the group and its members are doing. To help the group understand how you feel about the problem. To get the job done. Items were arranged randomly on each of the forms so there would be no pattern to the statements; i.e., sometimes the authoritarian statement was the first of the two; sometimes the democratic statement was first. The other measuring instrument tested contained seven-step scales using each of the statements that were used in the paired comparison forms. The leaders reSponded to each statement on an Important - Unimportant continuum. These trial forms were pretested with Montana u-H Club leaders who attended the 196% State u-H Club Congress at Montana State University in l9 Bozeman. This group was from the same pOpulation as those used in the study, u-H Club leaders. In all cases, the subjects were asked to respond as leaders of a.youth group discussion. Samples of these instruments are found in the Appendix. Total scores were obtained for each individual on each questionnaire. The paired comparison forms were scored by giving one point for each authoritarian-type statement checked. For the seven-step scale, a score of one was assigned to the most democratic response and a score of seven to the most authoritarian re3ponse. A median Split was used to dichotomize re3ponses to each of the forms. Leaders scoring above the median were considered to be authori- tarian, and those scoring below the median were considered to be democratic. The Final Questionnaire The reSponses of both groups to each item were examined. The items selected for the final questionnaire were those that best differentiated between the two leadership styles. Ten of the paired com- parison statements and eight of the seven-step scale statements were selected. In order to eliminate order effects in the final questionnaire, the authoritarian statement was listed first in five of the pairs of state- ments; the democratic statement first in the other five pairs. The ten paired-comparison statements preceded the seven-step scale section on the form and were used as the primary measure of authoritarian and democratic leadership preference. 20 A total of 160 u-H Club leaders completed the paired comparison portion of the questionnaire used to measure the independent variable. Their responses are summarized in Table 1. The results indicate that the instrument effectively separated leadership styles. The questionnaire is included in the Appendix. Table 1. Distribution of questionnaire scores Scores Frequengy 6 23 30 3a 26 21 12 5 POI—IO OLDCDQOWUW-FOJ 2 1 O H Procedures Subjects were selected from the extreme ends of the continuum of Scores. None of the participants in the pretesting were included. Twenty-one leaders who answered the final questionnaire most democratically and 21 of those who reSponded most autocratically were used as subjects in the study. The democratic group came from those who scored from 0 to 2 out of a possible 10 on the paired comparison questionnaire, and the authoritarian group came from those scoring from 5 to 9 on the same measuring instrument. 21 Nine of the 21 authoritarian leaders were men and 12 were women. In the democratic group there were 7 men and 14 women. A comparison of the number of years of eXperience as a u-H Club leader revealed that the authoritarian group averaged 5.u years and the democratic group averaged 6.7 years. Arrangements were made to study these selected leaders as they led a discussion with their club members. A set of nine questions were developed as topics for the group discussion. These questions were designed to be open-ended, controversial, and of general interest and concern to 4-H Club members and leaders. The questions used were as follows: How much help should parents give their children with their u-H projects? Should a member work especially for an award, such as a trip, or a big prize? Should members who have fewer resources (such as money, buildings, equipment, home, parents, etc.) have to do the same things to complete a project as members who have a lot of resources? Should younger u-H members have to compete with older and ex- perienced members at fairs, demonstration contests, judging contests, style revenues, etc. for awards, honors, ribbons, county medals, etc.? Should younger members be required to do the same things as older members to complete a project? How should you decide if a member has done a successful job? Should you consider ability, how hard the member tries, how much help he gets from others or just what do you consider? Do members learn more when they are competing in contests or do they learn more in other ways? Should the things that a member has to do to complete a project all be written out before he enrolls or should the member decide some or all Of the things that he will do to complete a project? 22 Should the requirements be the same for those who live in town and for those who live in the country? In order to place some pressure on the subjects to examine their reactions and to establish comparable conditions for observation, a time limit of thirty minutes was set for the discussion. The importance of the discussion was emphasized by informing the group that the State u-H Club Office at Montana State lhiversity was interested in hearing their views on the questions. This, in fact, was true, since that office assisted in selecting the discussion t0pics and exPressed an interest in the entire study. The importance of trying to reach agreement on the best possible solution was stressed. All of the instructions were designed to heighten leader differentiation and to establish comparable conditions for study and observation. The statement read to all groups just prior to the beginning of the discussion was as follows: We have several topics that we would like to have you discuss at this meeting. They are all related to u-H Club work. They are important. Many people, including the State u-H Club Staff, are interested in hearing your views. Other u-H Clubs in Western Montana are also discussing these same topics. Because this is to be a discussion by club members and their leader, we have asked one of the club leaders to lead this discussion. We are also asking other club leaders, parents, visitors, and county agents NOT to participate during the discussion. In order to make an analysis of all of the views of all of the clubs participating in these discussions, the meetings are being tape recorded. Please try to reach a decision on as many of these topics as you can during a one-half hour period. You'll want the de- cisions to be what your club feels is the best possible solution. 23 A summary of the results of all of the discussions will be sent to you after they have been summarized. Please do NOT discuss these questions with other u-H Club members because it will NOT be fair to them in case their club is also one that is selected to discuss these topics. Let me emphasize, once again, that it is important for the club to try to reach_agreement on the best possible solution. There was no evidence to indicate that any of the leaders connected the tape recording of the discussion with the questionnaire that they had completed earlier. All of the questionnaires were filled out several months to a year in advance of the club discussions. Following the discussion the u-H Club members were asked to complete, individually, a seven-step scale whose polar boundaries were "Agree-Disagree." The purpose was to measure member satisfaction with the group discussion. Two statements used to measure member satisfaction with the group solution were: 1. I was satisfied with the conclusions reached by the group. 2. I would be willing to try to convince my friends that the conclusions reached by our club were the best one available. Two statements used to measure member satisfaction relative to interpersonal attraction were: 3. There was a friendly atmOSphere in the group. n. I enjoyed discussing these topics with the group. The mean number of members in the groups with authoritarian leadership was ll.u, with a range of 5 to 23 members. The mean number of members in the groups with democratic leadership was 12.5, with a range of 6 to 2n members. This comparability militates against differences in quantity or type of leadership communication resulting 2n from the size variable. All procedures were pretested with a club prior to the collection of the data. As a result of this pretest some minor adjustments were made. The need to try reach agreement on the best possible solution was ‘ given additional emphasis in the opening introduction read to the clubs used in the study. One of the items used in the member satisfaction measuring device, previously discussed, was changed to read positively by eliminating the word "not"; i.e., the original statement read, "I was not satisfied with the conclusions reached by the groups." Dependent Measures The group discussions of the 21 democratic and 21 authoritarian leaders were taped. Following the meeting, all of the statements made by the leader during the discussion were transcribed and were content analyzed as outlined below. The coding was rechecked by replaying the tape recordings. The tone of voice and other qualities in the tape recordings were most helpful in the final coding. All statements were categorized into one of the four major areas used by Bales. A. Social-Emotional Area: Positive Reactions. B. Task Area: Attempted Answers. C. Task Area: Questions. D. Social—Emotional Area: Negative Reactions. A single Simple sentence, similar statement, or thought was used as the basis of analysis. In order to measure participation encouragement by the leader, any statement made by the leader to encourage a member to participate 25 was coded PE. Some examples of statements included in this category are as follows: "John" (any time the leader called on a member by name.) "Anybody else got anything they can add?" "You haven't said anything yet." "How about you?" "Barbara had her hand up." Statements were categorized as QAS (Questions, Alternatives, or Speculations) if they tended to expand the thinking of a member, or of the group. The total statement or the idea was used as the unit of classification. To insure uniformity, any time that the leader repeated any of the questions under discussion, it was scored as a single QAS. Some examples are as follows: "DO you feel that you should work for awards or just for the year?" "Do you feel that the ones who have only a little money or equipment are as good as others?" "Shouldn't he think of the club as a whole rather than just himself?" "It is a lot different being in a contest than it is to Show your pig at home, isn't it?" Any statements that tended to encourage the members to relate the discussion to the purposes of u-H Club work, in general, were marked with a GP. The total statement or the idea was used as the classification unit. Some examples are as follows: "Do you learn more through u-H than those who do not have ”pH in their families?" "Well, in general, how do you feel about your u-H projects?" "It is important, in life, to learn things." "That is one of the good things about u-H, it brings people 26 together." The total communication index for each leader was obtained by counting the actual number of words spoken during a given time period. Each minute of elapsed time was indicated on the typewritten sheets of leader statements. These markings were made as the tape recording was replayed following the original transcription of the statements. The seven-step member satisfaction responses were scored by assigning a value of l to the interval indicating maximum agreement and a value of 7 to the interval indicating maximum disagreement. For each leader, the responses of all members to each statement were totaled. A mean was computed for each statement for each leader. Statements 1 and 2 (see page 23) were totaled to obtain the group solution member satisfaction index. Statements 3 and 4 were totaled to Obtain the interpersonal attraction index. Means were then computed fer the authoritarian and the democratic groups. The coding was performed by the researcher. Coder reliability measurements were obtained by utilizing two other trained coders. The typewritten statements by ten leaders, five authoritarian and five democratic, were selected at random for the coder reliability checks. The statements were first coded from the leader's typewritten statements. Following this original coding, the tape recordings were played fOr further clarification. Percentage agreement indexes were computed to establish coding reliability. In order to provide uniformity in the analysis of the data, decisions had to be made regarding coding of repetitions of the original 27. discussion questions. The first time a leader read the original nine discussion questions, no coding of any kind was made. However, if a leader repeated a question either on his own initiative or when requested, a uniform coding procedure was fOllowed. All repeated questions were coded as one QAS (question) and one B (attempted answer, Bales' system). Since the original discussion questions vary in length, it seemed most equitable to use this uniform coding System to avoid assisting or penalizing any leader just because he happened to repeat either a longer or a shorter question. On the other hand, the fact that a question was repeated needed to be considered. CHAPTER III RESULTS For all statistical tests, the .05 level of significance was utilized. Of the 13 hypotheses develOped in Chapter I, seven were supported by the data; two approached significance (<:.10), and four were not supported. Reliability Check Coding procedures and reliability checks were discussed in the preceding chapter. Table 2 contains the percentage agreement indices fer the researcher and the two coders who performed the coding fer the reliability checks . Table 2. Percentage agreement indices for the coder reliability checks Coders Percentage of agreement Mean A B C D PE GP QAS All three agree 65.1 63.7 85.1 88.3 90.0 55.0 #6.u 70.5 Researcher and Coder 1 .agree 76.7 78.3 88.# 88.3 92.6 85.0 62.5 81.7 Researcher and Coder 2 agree 70.6 70.1 89.8 93.3 91.0 55.0 55.5 75.0 Researcher and Coder l or Coder 2 Iagree 82.2 8n.u 93.2 93.3 95.5 85.0 71.2 86.4 28 29 It can be seen that all three coders agreed on 70.5% of all coding of all items. Coder l and the researcher agreed on 81.7% of the coding; Coder 2 and the researcher agreed on 75% of the coding. The researcher and either Coder l or Coder 2 or both Coder l and Coder 2 agreed on the coding of 86.4% of all of the items. Higher percentages of agreement could be attained with additional training and experience. Since there were relatively few units coded in the GP and QAS categories, lack of agreement on a unit rapidly decreased the percentage of agreement. A clearer operationalization of the GP and QAS categories could also increase the percentage of agreement. The two people who assisted with the reliability checking were unfamiliar with the purposes of the study. After a training session in the coding techniques, they coded the communication behaviors of five authoritarian and five democratic leaders, selected randomly. Each coder was given typewritten copies of all of the statements made by each leader. The coders worked independently, using symbols as described in the preceding section. Following initial coding, the tape recording was played to verify coding decisions. By listening to the tape recording it was possible to gain a more adequate feeling of the intention of the leader uttering it; e.g., the word "No" may be said inagreement or in disagreement with the preceding statement; therefore, the total content of the conversation sometimes required consideration. Listening to the tape recording made it possible to consider the tone of voice used in each statement as compared to the total group of statements. Also it was possible to differentiate questions from other statements more easily. 30 In summary, the results of the percentage agreement indices indicate that the coding as performed by the researcher was generally consistent with the content analytic categories used in the study. Test of the Hypotheses The means and the standard deviations for both the authoritarian and the democratic groups for all hypotheses are presented in Table 3. Means and standard deviations for authoritarian and democratic leaders by hypothesis Table 3 . Hypothesis Authoritarian Democratic Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 1 434.0 177.05 332.4 216.73 2 .0590 .1525 .0891 .2951 3 .9212 .4032 .9954 .6898 4 .0037 .0163 .0043 .0627 5 .0788 .1287 .0045 .0627 6 .2913 .1138 .4076 .1846 7 .0962 .0425 .1360 .0947 8 .0063 .0154 .0143 .0275 9 .5202 .1292 .3545 .1758 10 .5523 .1341 .3822 .1827 11 .4171 .1302 .5558 .1522 12 .4448 .1341 .6183 .1825 31 H 1: Total Communication Index: It was hypothesized that authoritarian leaders would engage in a significantly greater amount of communication with their group than would the democratic leaders. For the equalized ten minute periods used in the analysis, the mean number of words Spoken by the authoritarian leaders was 434.0, while the mean number of words Spoken by the democratic leaders was 332.4. The t test fell barely short of significance (t_= 1.67; 5‘05 = 1,53) in the predicted direction.1 This failure is largely due to the extreme variability in quantity of communication in both groups. During the ten minute period, the amount of communication ranged from 196 words to 788 words for the authoritarian leaders, and from 72 to 851 words for the democratic leaders. Given this extreme variability, the results for the Communication Index are encouraging, even though they are not quite significant. Hypotheses Dealing with Social-Emotional Reactions H 2: Positive Social-Emotional References: This hypothesis predicted that the democratic leaders would utter a higher ratio of statements classified as Social-Emotional Reactions: Positive Statements to total statements than would the authoritarian leaders. The obtained t_for this hypothesis was 1.31, which exceeds the .10 level of significance. About 6% of the statements made by the authoritarian leaders were in this category; for the democratic leaders the figure was 9%. All t_tests are one-tailed. 32 The low percentage of units coded in this category is an important factor to take into consideration when interpreting the results for this hypothesis. H 3: Positive Social-Emotional Emphasis: This hypothesis referred to the ratio of statements classified as Social-Emotional Reactions: Positive Statements to total Social-Emotional statements. It was hypothesized that democratic leaders would produce a higher ratio than would authoritarian leaders. The hypothesis was not confirmed (t_less than 1). The fact that very few negative Social-Emotional statements were made by either group provides one eXplanation why this hypothesis was not supported. Over 92% of the Social-Emotional statements made by the authoritarian group were in the positive category; for the democratic leaders, it was over 99%. H 4: Negative Social-Emotional References: This hypothesis stated that authoritarian leaders would utter more Social-Emotional Statements: Negative Reactions when compared to total statements than would the democratic leaders. As has already been pointed out, very few negative statements were made. This hypothesis was not confirmed. Less than half of one percent of the statements of leaders in both groups were coded in the negative Social-Emotional category. The mean for the authoritarian group was 0.37% and for the democratic group the mean was 0.43%. H 5: Negative Social—Emotional Emphasis: When the number of Social-Emotional Statements: Negative Reactions 33 to total Social-Emotional statements was compared, the hypothesis that the authoritarian leaders would utter more negative reactions was substantiated (t_= 2.62). The mean, in percentage, for the authoritarian group was 7.9%, while it was less than 1.0% for the democratic leaders. In regard to both Hypotheses 3 and 5, it should be pointed out that only one leader in the entire study failed to make a single statement that could be classified as either a positive or a negative Social- Emotional statement. This was a leader classified as democratic. Hypothesis 5 is the only one of the four hypotheses dealing with the Social-Emotional category that was confirmed. Two major factors that contributed to the support of this hypothesis are: (1) only the Social- Emotional reactions are considered and (2) only one democratic leader made a statement classified as negative, as compared to eight in the authoritarian group. In the authoritarian group, an average of almost 8% of the Social-Emotional statements were classified as negative; while the percentage for the democratic group was less than one percent. In Spite of the fact that one hypothesis pertaining to this category was substantiated, the results dealing with Social-Emotional content are not too meaningful, simply because few units in the communi- cations behavior of the leaders were coded in the Social-Emotional category. Hypotheses Dealing with Task Area Categories Hypotheses 9 through 12 were related to Bales' Task Area category. Over 90% of the leaders' statements were coded in the Task Areas. 34 H 9: Attempted Task Answers: It was hypothesized that the authoritarian leader would utter a higher ratio of Statements classified as Task Area: Attempted Answers to total statements than would the democratic leader. A significant £_Of 3.48 was obtained on the test of this hypothesis. For the authoritarian leaders, the percentage of statements coded in this category was 52%, while the percentage was 35% for the democratic , group - H 10: Attempted Task Answer Emphasis: This hypothesis related the Task Area: Attempted Answers to the total number of statements in both task areas and predicted a higher ratio for the authoritarian leader group. A £_of 3.44 substantiated the hypothesis. Comparative percentages for the two groups were: authoritarian, 55%; democratic, 38%. H 11: Questions: It was hypothesized that the democratic leader would utter a higher ratio of statements classified as Task Area: Questions to total statements than would the authoritarian leader. The comparison yielded a significant E_of 3.17. A comparison of the percentages for the two leader groups Shows that the democratic leaders made 56% of their statements in this category, while the percentage for the authoritarian group was only 42%. 35 H 12: Questions Emphasis: In this case the ratio of statements coded as Task Area: Questions to the total statements in both Task Areas was considered. It was hypothesized that the democratic leaders would utter a higher ratio than would the authoritarian leaders, and this hypothesis was confirmed (3: 3.51). Comparitive percentage figures show 44% for the authoritarian group and 62% for the democratic group. The four hypotheses relevant to task direction produced some of the most significant and meaningful results of the study. All were confirmed. Since a large number of coding units were available in the Task Area categories, the results are particularly reliable. The reader will recall that over 90% of the leaders' statements were coded in the Task Area categories. A post hoc analysis adds to the interest of these findings. As the data were being analyzed, it appeared that authoritarian leaders used more Task Area Attempted Answer statements (B's) and less Task Area Questions (C's) as the discussions progressed. A comparison of the first five minute period and the second five minute period was prepared to see if this was, in fact, true. The results are given in Table 4. This analysis shows that over half of the authoritarian leadership 7 group increasingly gave attempted answers as the discussion progressed, while the democratic leader apparently left an increasing portion of the prOblem solving up to the group as the discussion progressed. 36 Table 4. A comparison of the use of Task Area statements (B - Attempted Answers and C - Questions) during the first ten minutes of discussion During the second five minute Number of Leaders period as compared to the first five minute period Auth. Demo. Used more B's; less C's ll 5 Used more B's; more C's 6 2 Used less B's; more C's 0 2 Used less B's; less C's 4 9 Used same B's; less C's 0 1 Used more B's; same C's 0 1 Used less B's; same C's 0 1 Other Content Analytic Hypotheses Hypotheses 6, 7, and 8 are concerned with three measurements developed in this study. The coding for these hypotheses was independent of the Bales system. H 6: Participation Encouragement: This hypothesis predicted that the democratic leader would make a higher percentage of statements encouraging members to participate in the discussion than would the authoritarian leader. A t_of 2.46 confirmed the hypothesis. Over 40% of the statements of the democratic leaders were coded as encouraging participation, while 29% of the statements of the authoritarian leaders were classified in this category. A post hoc analysis indicated a difference in some participation 37 encouragement statements made by the two groups. The data were checked for statements that could be called an "order" to talk; e.g., "Speak up." or "Come on." A comparison of this analysis is given in Table 5. Table 5. A comparison of democratic and authoritarian leaders on giving orders to talk Number of Leaders Auth. Demo. Gave one or more orders 11 2 Never gave an order 10 19 This difference is significant at the .01 level (chi square = 7.13). H 7: Questions, Alternatives, Speculations Index: This index involved the number of leaders' statements involving Questions, Alternatives, and Speculations. It was predicted that democratic leaders would utter more of these statements than would the authoritarian leaders. A significant t_of 1.76 was obtained. The percentage of state- ments classified in this category was 14% for the democratic leaders and 10% for the authoritarian group. H 8: Group Purpose Index: This hypothesis predicted that the democratic leader would make a 38 higher ratio of statements relating the discussion to the overall group purpose or objectives than would the authoritarian leader. Few state- ments of either group were coded as relating to overall Group Purpose. A nonsignificant t_of 1.16 was obtained. Less than one percent of the communications of the authoritarian group (0.6%) were coded as Group Purpose statements. In the democratic group, the mean was 1.4%. It may also be that this hypothesis was in error. Later reflection suggests that the autocrat's concern for productivity might be reflected in his group purpose statements. Member Satisfaction Hypothesis H 13: Member Satisfaction: This hypothesis predicted that greater member satisfaction would result from the democratic than from the authoritarian leadership style. In the group solution portion of the hypothesis, the means were 5.1 for the authoritarian group and 5.3 for the democratic group. In the interpersonal attraction portion, the means were 3.3 for the authoritarian group and 3.3 for the democratic group. Neither portion of the index yielded results that differed significantly. Summary A summary of the results for all content analytic hypotheses is presented in Table 6. 39 Table 6. Summary of results of tests of content analytic hypotheses Hypothesis t_ Level of Confidence 1. Total Communication Index 1.67 .10 2. Positive Social-Emotional References 1.31 .10 3. Positive Social-Emotional Emphasis .49 .25 4. Negative Social-Emotional References .15 .25 5. Negative Social-Emotional Emphasis 2.62 .01 6. Participation Encouragement Index 2.46 .01 7. Questions, Alternatives, Speculations Index 1.76 .05 8. Group Purpose Index 1.16 .20 9. Attempted Task Answers 3.48 .005 10. Attempted Task Answers Emphasis 3.44 .005 11. Questions 3.17 .005 12. Questions Emphasis 3.51 .005 CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION This study demonstrates that democratic and authoritarian leaders differ in several dimensions of leadership communication behavior. In _general, the differences are consistent with theoretic expectations and reflect varying commitments to particular dimensions of group process. This fact can best be demonstrated by a reconsideration of the characteristics of democratic and authoritarian leadership discussed in Chapter I. The reader will recall that democratic leaders are concerned with the following interrelationships: 14 A concern that each group member has an opportunity to influence decisions in accordance with his abilities and with his desires. Confirmation of the Participation Encouragement hypothesis substantiated the position that demoncratic leaders are concerned that group members have an opportunity to influence group decisions. Democratic leaders were apparently quite concerned about Participation Encouragement, since over 40% of their statements were coded in that category. By contrast, the percentage for the authoritarian group was just over 29%. There also appears to be a greater interest in efficient group productivity on the part of the authoritarian leader. Some of the authoritarian leader's Participation Encouragement statements can be called orders to talk. Table 5 in Chapter III shows that eleven leaders in the authoritarian group gave one or more orders to talk. By contrast, no 41 only two leaders in the democratic group gave Similar orders. In other words, while the democratic leader encouraged group participation to give members an opportunity to participate, the authoritarian leader encouraged participation for production. At least a portion of the Participation Encouragement statements of authoritarian leaders appear to be more concerned with getting results than with presenting opportunities for _ greater group participation. 2. A concern for the evaluation of relevant alternatives. The conformation of the hypothesis concerning the Questions, Alternatives, and Speculations Index indicates greater concern by the democratic leaders for evaluation of relevant alternatives. It is important to recall the coding basis for the QAS Index as well as to remember that democratic leaders made a significantly higher number of these statements. The idea was the coding unit for the QAS Index; therefore, it included only those ideas that tended to enlarge the thinking of the members. Confirmation of the Questions and the Questions Emphasis hypotheses also support this concern for evaluation of alternatives by the democratic leader. In fact, democratic leaders put significantly more of their communications to the group in the form of questions, many Of'WhiCh suggested the desirability of exploring alternative solutions to the problems. 3. A concern that the grogp reach their own decision rather than merely reinforce the leader's preferred decision. One of the more significant findings in this study was the nearly significant difference in the number of words spoken by the two groups; i.e., the findings pertaining to the lil.‘ l|lllli al‘ {I‘ll 42 hypothesis that authoritarian leaders would speak more words in a specified period of time than would the democratic leaders. Perhaps even more importantly, the basic differences in the communication patterns provide further support for the democratic leader's greater commitment to group decision making. The PE Index, the QAS Index, and the higher number of questions in the Task Area all support the position that democratic leaders do have a greater concern than authoritarians that their groups reach their own decisions. 4. A concern to stimulate thinking byputtingstatements in the form of questions or choices amopg alternatives. Conformation of the hypothesis concerning the QAS Index indicates a greater concern by the democratic leader to assist groups in decision making through asking questions or posing choices among alternatives. In addition, confirmation of the hypotheses related to Bales' Task Area categories supports the position that democratic leaders communicate with their groups through Task Area: Questions significantly more than do the authoritarians. 5. H_ggeater concern fopygroup maintenance than forygroup production. Support for this concern would most logically be anticipated in the Social- Emotional categories, specifically in the positive statements. Since none of the hypotheses in this area were confirmed, there was no verification of this characteristic. It must be emphasized, however, that few state- ments were coded in the Social-Emotional grOUps. Perhaps the fact that these groups were ongoing contributed to the low frequency of maintenance needs statements. Such needs may have been largely provided for in early meetings. 43 6. A concern for helping the group to clarify group_goals. The Group Purpose Index was directly related to this characteristic; however, the hypothesis dealing with it was not confirmed. It must be re-emphasized that neither the democratic nor the authoritarian leaders made many state- msits that were coded as Group Purpose Statements. 7. A concern for group maintenance and positive affective relations within the group. The Positive Social-Emotional References hypotheses (H 2), although not supported, was in the predicted direction (t_= .10). This finding gives some support for the assumption that democratic leaders will Show a greater interest in the maintenance needs of the group. Some statements made by leaders in the democratic group illustrate this concern, namely, "Gee, we're down to the last question. Is anybody hurt yet?" or, "Or did you join so you could be with other boys and girls and to learn to be a good 4-H member?" A few more examples from the leader statements will add support for the position that the democratic leader is more concerned.with group maintenance and positive affective relations. Some statements of democratic leaders that tended to build a feeling of importance and respect for the members are: (l) "I think we will all be interested in hearing what you have to say on this," (2) "Phil, you're a junior leader, what do you think of this?", and (3) "That's a very good thought." By contrast, some statements of authoritarian leaders that tend to downgrade a member's position are: (1) "What was your reason for losing last year?", (2) "In other words, you weren't prepared," (3) "I wonder how come you didn't think of that before," and (4) "You could at least _ give a little bit on this." an Confirmation of the hypothesis concerning the Negative Social- Emotional Emphasis indicates a greater willingness of the authoritarian leader to use negative Social-Emotional reactions to members' statements. The lack of negative Social-Emothional reactions by the democratic leaders supports the position that they are concerned with group maintenance and positive affective relations within the group. Authoritarian Leadership‘ The confirmed hypotheses in this study substantiate many of the characteristics of the authoritarian leader discussed in Chapter I. 1. A concern for efficient group_productivity. The authoritarian leader appears to be more concerned with providing answers to the dis- cussion questions. Conformation of the two Attempted Answers hypotheses indicates the greater interest in productivity on the part of authoritarian leaders. Table 4, Chapter III, provides further insight into the concern of the authoritarian leader for productivity. The table shows that authoritarian leaders tended to use more Task Area Answers and fewer Task Area Questions as the discussion proceeded. Conformation of the Participation Encouragement hypothesis is also relevant. Over 40% of the democratic leaders' statements were coded in the PE category, as compared to 29% for the authoritarian leaders. An analysis of the PE category indicates that the democratic leader encourages _ group participation to give the members an opportunity to participate, and the authoritarian leader encourages participation for production. [It'll-I'll. 45 2. A concern for achieving his own preferred outcomes. Confirmation of the two Attempted Answers hypotheses indicates the interest of the authoritarian leader in achieving his own preferred outcomes. These leaders uttered significantly more Task Area: Attempted Answer statements and significantly fewer Task Area: Questions than did the democratic leaders. By contrast, analyses for the democratic leaders produces opposite results. In other words, the authoritarian leaders show a greater interest in attempting to provide answers. A Study of the leaders' communications reveals that several of the leaders in the authoritarian groups would first allow the group members to give their opinions, but would then express their own views and call for a vote, or proceed directly to the next question. By contrast, this approach was seldom used by the democratic leaders. The nearly Significant difference in the number of words Spoken by the two groups also gives some support to the assumption that authoritarian leaders are interested in achieving their preferred outcomes. The pre- diction that authoritarian leaders would talk more in a Specified period of time approached significance. 3. A concern that his viewpoints are represented or understood in discussions. Findings in regard to the Attempted Answers hypotheses provide support for the position that authoritarian leaders are concerned that their viewpoints are represented in discussions. The fact that significantly more of their communications to the group involved attempts to provide answers is an indication of the authoritarian leader's interest in expressing his viewpoints. Ill-III!!! 46 When considering leaders' interests in having their viewpoints represented in group discussions, it is important to consider the number of words Spoken. The fact that the Total Communication Index closely approached significance indicates that authoritarians may take more of the group's time with their own statements. Results concerning the Attempted Answers and the Total Communi- cation Index hypotheses indicate that authoritarian leaders take more of the group's time with their own communications and that these communi- cations are devoted, to a large extent, to providing answers. As might be eXpected, there was considerable variation in the Communication Index within each group. It was pointed out earlier that leadership style is not a simple dichotomy. There were leaders in both _ groups who might be classified as participatory. These leaders became actively involved in participating in the discussion or in leading it. On the other hand, there were leaders in both groups who essentially limited themselves to reading the discussion questions. These leaders participated only by calling on individual members and did.little to either expand or restrict the group's action or thinking. 4. A concern for the control of the major communication interactions of the group, Findings in regard to many of the hypotheses lend support to the position that authoritarian leaders are concerned with the control of the major communication interactions of the group. This includes the two Attempted Answers, the two Questions, the QAS Index, and the Total Communication Index hypotheses. The authoritarian leaders made a higher ltl|[.llllul" 47 ratio of Attempted Answers and a lower ratio Of statements coded as Questions than did the democratic leaders. The total Communication.1ndex . gives an indication that the authoritarian may be interested in the control of major communication interactions and accomplishes this, to some extent, simply by doing more talking than the democratic leader. 5. A concern for the control of knowledge necessary to achieve the _go§l§: Confirmation of the two Attempted Answers hypotheses lend support to the position that the authoritarian leader is interested in the control of the knowledge necessary to achieve goals. The results from these hypotheses indicate that authoritarians offer their knowledge to the group in the form of Attempted Answers. A study of the leaders' communications reveals that some of the leaders in the authoritarian group presented the questions to their groups a bit differently. One leader from this group read a part of one question and then said, "Let's just stop there. We won't read the other part." Another omitted part of one question during the first reading of the question. She read more later, but never did read all of the question to the group. Still another leader casually introduced a new discussion question into the discussion without identifying it as such. By contrast, similar approaches did not Occur in the democratic group. 6. A concern for fast action if he deems it necessary. There was no evidence in this study to support this concern as a characteristic of authoritarian leaders. A time limit of thirty minutes was stressed in the instructions to the groups, but this did not have a visible effect on either 48 of the leadership styles. Lengths of discussion were about equal for both groups. The Task Area and Social-Emotional Hypotheses A large portion of the statements of both the democratic and the authoritarian leaders was devoted to prOblem solving; i.e., the Task Area categories. All Task Area hypotheses were supported at the .005 level. The terminal acts of the problem solving sequence include Social- Emotional hypotheses. Since they are terminal acts, it would seem reasonable to expect that less time would be devoted to them. This ex- pectation was realized in this study, since less than ten percent of the coding units in both leadership styles were coded in these areas. The leader's interpretation of his role also affected the use of Social- Emotional statements. Non-participatory leaders, who appeared to interpret their role as asking questions rather than leading a discussion, made fewer terminal statements than other leaders. Very few negative Social-Emotional statements were made by either . group. This may be due, in part, to the fact that 4-H Clubs are voluntary organizations and that leaders feel that it will be difficult to maintain membership if negative Social-Emotional reactions are given. In fact, it is possible that authoritarian leaders may use Social-Emotional reactions of a positive nature as a method of group control in organizations were membership is voluntary. In summary, the results of this study support many of the differences between democratic and authoritarian leadership styles (It. 49 discussed above. Some fundamental differences in communication behaviors have been substantiated. There are numerous relationships between the various characteristics and the hypotheses that were confirmed. Member Satisfaction Some readers may find it disappointing that the Member Satisfaction hypothesis was not confirmed. Additional support for the greater effectiveness of a democratic style of leadership would have resulted if the analyses would have shown that the members of democratic groups were more satisfied. A closer examination of the clubs in this study may reveal some possible explanations for the lack of differences in Member Satisfaction between the two kinds of groups. This study was injected into continuing groups merely as a part of one club meeting. Since membership is Optional, each member was evidently sufficiently satisfied.with his or her group. Those who find group membership or style of leadership unsatisfactory either do not join a club at all or leave after a Short period of membership. Still other members may have been too new to have formed Opinions concerning the style of leadership and may have been satisfied just to be a member of the group. In addition, many of the newer members would not have had the opportunity or the ex- perience necessary to form Opinions on the questions used in the discussions. In summary, the nature of the groups used in this study make it difficult to generalize the lack of support for the member satisfaction hypothesis. On the contrary, one might well expect to support a hypothesis of this kind in studies similar to this one. The fact that these groups were composed of children with an adult leader adds further explanation 50 to failure to support the hypothesis, inasmuch as there is undoubtedly an element of idolization of the leader by many of the members. Differentiation of Leadership Types One of the most encouraging asPects of this study is that the measuring instrument developed to assign leaders on the independent variable effectively differentiated individuals who subsequently differed in the expected direction in many of their communication behaviors. This fact suggests that the instrument may be useful in discriminating leaders who differ in subsequent leaderShip style. Whether or not the results obtained in this study with the measuring instrument would generalize to the total population is subject to question. The 4-H Club organization is a voluntary type of group, in that both membership in the club and leadership of a club are decisions of the individual. This would logically seem to favor a democratic type of structure within the club. Then, too, training given to leaders by the Cooperative Extension Service is generally in the direction of democratic leadership. In addition, the value system in the United States places a high value on democratic styles of ,leadership. These factors raise some intriguing questions; e.g.: (1) Are adult leaders of voluntary youth . groups typical of the total population in their reSponses to the questionnaire?, (2) Would a large sample of the total population reSpond to the questionnaire in a manner closely approaching the normal curve?, (3) Would the reSponse to the questionnaire vary greatly from nation to nation?, and (u) Are pe0ple who score high on the questionnaire less likely to find leading a voluntary youth group to be a rewarding experience than 51 those who score low? Further testing of this measuring instrument could be fruitful for those interested in the study of leadership style in many different populations. The scores of the leaders used in this study indicate some possible areas where the questionnaire might be improved. An examination of the answers checked by the democratic group reveals that 13 of the 21 in that group checked the authoritarian answer to Question 10. The choice on that question is between the following statements: (Demo.) To let the members reach a decision all by themselves. (Auto.) To give new information when you feel the members are ready for it. Since both alternatives are probably consistent with democratic leadership, consideration should be given to either eliminating the question or making a change in the wording. This problem did not exist with any of the other questions, since no more than two of the 21 democratic leaders checked the same authoritarian answer. Turning to the authoritarian group, an analysis reveals that the authoritarian answer least checked was the one appearing on Question 9. Only three of the 21 in the group checked the authoritarian answer on this question. The choice is between the following statements: (Demo.) To ask questions that will cause the members to do more thinking. (Auth.) To get the job done. In summary, one of the contributions of this study to the social sciences is in the potential of this measuring instrument in isolating these two different leadership styles. Further examinations and study are needed to determine if the instrument has predictive power in a variety 52 of populations. Communication Behaviors and Leadership Type_ Because of its influence and importance, the study of leadership has interested the scientist and the layman alike for many years. The complexities of such study are enormous. Even when interest is restricted to the style of leadership, many complexities still remain. Some of the research and some of the inherent problems were indicated in Chapter I. This study involved an effort to establish leadership style as an independent variable, and then to study communication behaviors as a dependent variable to see if, in fact, there are some basic differences in the way democratic and authoritarian leaders communicate. That viewing leadership as a simple dichotomy is an oversimplification is _ granted; nevertheless, limiting leadership to these two styles made it possible to simplify sufficiently to test communication behaviors hypotheses with people:h actual leadership roles. This study offers a new approach to defining leadership styles. It is obvious that the communications of the leader are one possible basis for isolating leadership differences. The results in this study demonstrate the importance of understanding fundamental differences in the communications behavior of democratic and authoritarian leaders. That the fundamental approach to leadership styles developed in this study is essential in understanding leadership can be illustrated by contrasting this approach with the participatory - non-participatory approach. An analysis has shown that among both the democrats and the 53 authoritarians there were leaders who participated actively in the group discussions and there were leaders who were essentially non-participants. Thus, it would appear that attempting to define leadership style solely on the basis of participatory and non-participatory roles is unrealistic.1 Attention must be given to the content of leadership communications, as well as the quantity. Implications fOr Future Research The voluntary conditions involved in u-H club membership and leader- ship have been stressed. It would be interesting to conduct a study similar to this one within a school system where more compulsory conditions exist; the students are required to attend and the teacher is making a living at the job. The laissez-faire condition is one that is worthy of further study. Is this a situation that occurs when an attempt at democratic leadership fails, or is it a condition that results when a person would like to lead a group in a democratic manner, but does not know how to implement democracy? Laissez-faire leadership was most apparent within some democratic groups in this study. The laissez-faire condition developed in the Lippitt and White studies when democratic leadership was not achieved.2 More research might well be conducted on methods of assisting people to assume roles of participatory democratic leadership rather than playing a laissez-faire leadership role. 1Preston and Heintz, pp. ans-55. 2 . . . White and Llppltt, pp. 9—10. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, S. "Social Climate and Productivity in Small Military Groups," American Sociological Review, XIX (195%), 421-25. Bales, R. F. Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Social Groups. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1950. Bevan, W., gt, 21, "Jury Behavior as a Function of the Prestige of the Foreman and the Nature of his Leadership," Journal of Public Law, VII (1958), ulg-ug. Christner, Charlotte A., and Hemphill, J. K. "Leader Behavior of B-29 Commanders and Changes in Crew Members' Attitudes Toward the Crew," Sociometry, XVIII (1955), 82-87. Fox, W. F. "Group Reaction to No Types of Conference Leadership," Human Relations, X (1957), 279-89. pGibb, C. A. "An Experimental Approach to the Study of Leadership," Occupational Paychology, XXV (1951), 233-u8. Hare, A. P. "Small Group Discussions with Participatory and Supervisory Leadership," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLVIII (1953), 273-75. IHare, A. P., Borgatta, E. P., and Bales, R. P. Small Groups: Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1955. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., and White, R. K. "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created 'Social Climates'," Journal of Social Psychology, X (1939), 271-99. I Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. I Lindzey, Gardner (ed.). Handbook of Social Psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wes ley , 1951+ . Lippitt, R. "Field Theory and Experiment in Social Psychology: Autocratic and Democratic Group AtmosPheres," American Journal of Sociology, XLV (1939), 26-u9. Maccoby, E. E., Newcomb, T. M., and Hartley, E. L. (eds.). Readings in Social Psychology. 3rd ed. revised. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1958. 54 55 McCurdy, H. G., and Eber, H. W. "Democratic versus Authoritarian: A Further Investigation of Group Problem-Solving," Journal of Personality, XXII (1953), 258-69. McGregor, Douglas. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1960. Petrullo, L., and Bass, B. M. Leadership and Interpersonal Behavior. New York: Holt, 1961. I Pfiffner, J. M., and Sherwood, F. P. Administrative Organization. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1960. I Preston, M. G., and Heintz, R. K. "Effects of Participatory versus Supervisory Leadership on Group Judgment,“ Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLIV (1909), ans-55. Raven, B. H., and French, J. P. R., Jr. "Legitimate Power, Coercive Power, and Observability in Social Influence," Sociometry, XXI (1958), 83-97. Shaw, M. E. "A Comparison of Two Types of Leadership in Various Communications Nets," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, L (1955), 127-3u. , Verba, Sidney. Small Groups and Political Behavior. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1961. | White, R. K., and Lippitt, R. Autocragy and Democragy. New York: Harper 8 Harper, 1960. Ziller, R. C. "Four Techniques of Group Decision Making under Uncertainty," Journal ofyApplied Psychology, XLI (1957), 38u-88. ! Ziller, R. C. "Communication Restraints, Group Flexibility, and Group Confidence," Journal of Applied Psychology, XLII (l958), ans-52. APPENDIX A. Form used in pretesting to select paired comparison items for the final questionnaire. We are interested in what you feel is important when you are leading a group discussion, particularly as an adult leader of a youth group. Listed below are several pairs of statements. Will you please read each pair of statements and place a mark in the Space in front of the statement that you feel is most important. INSTRUCTIONS: (1) Place your check marks clearly and carefully. (2) Do NOT omit any of the items. (3) Never check both of the items. (u) Do NOT look back and forth through the items, make each item a separate and independent judgment. (5) Your first impression, the immediate "feelings" about the statements is what we want. 1. __To give new information when you feel the members are ready for it. __To ask questions that will cause the members to do more thinking. 2. _;To assign members to tasks so more can be accomplished. __To discuss both the strong and the weak points of different solutions. 3. __To give everyone a chance to express his Opinion. __To help the group to what you think is their best answer. u. __To assign members to tasks so more can be accomplished. __To assist the group in getting along well together. 5. __To give everyone a chance to express his opinion. ._;To know what the group and its members are doing. 56 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ll. 12. 13. 1%. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 57 __To give new information when you feel the members are ready for it. To discuss both the strong and the weak points of “_different solutions. To give everyone a chance to express his opinion. :Zfio give new information when you feel the members are ready for it. To assign members to tasks so more can be accomplished. ::To let the members reach a decision all by themselves. _To help the group to what you think is their best answer. :To help the members see how the discussion is related to _the purposes of the group. _To assign members to tasks so more can be accomplished. :To ask questions that will cause the members to do more _thinking. _To let the members reach a decision all by themselves. :To help the group understand how you feel about the problem. _To ask questions that will cause the members to do more ‘thinking. __To help the group understand how you feel about the problem. _To know what the group and its members are doing. :To help the members see how the discussion is related to _the purposes of the group. _To get the job done. :To help the members see how the discussion is related to —the purpose of the group. To help the group to what you think is their best answer. ::To assist the group in getting along well together. __To help the members see how the discussion is related to the purpose of the group. __To give new information when you feel the members are ready for it. _To get the job done. :To let the members reach a decision all by themselves. __To know what the group and its members are doing. __To let the members reach a decision all by themselves. To let the members reach a decision all by themselves. ::To help the group to what you think is their best answer. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 58 To ask questions that will cause the members to do more -—thinking. __To help the group to what you think is their best answer. __To give new information when you feel the members are ready for it. __To let the members reach a decision all by themselves. __To help the members see how the discussion is related to the purpose of the group. __To assign members to tasks so more can be accomplished. _To discuss both the strong and weak points of different ‘solutions. __To know what the group and its members are doing. To give everyone a chance to eXpress his opinion. :To get the job done. _To assist the group in getting along well together. :To help the group understand how you feel about the —problem. __To help the group understand how you feel about the problem. __To give everyone a chance to eXpress his opinion. _To discuss both the strong and the weak points of —different solutions. __To help the group to what you think is their best answer. ._;To know what the group and its members are doing. _To ask questions that will cause the members to do more —thinking. __To help the group understand how you feel about the problem. __To help the members see how the discussion is related to the purpose of the group. _To get the job done. :To ask questions that will cause the members to do more —thinking. To know what the group and its members are doing. ::Fo assist the group in getting along well together. __To discuss both the strong and the weak points of different solutions. __To get the job done. __To give everyone a chance to express his opinion. __To assign members to tasks so more can be accomplished. 59 34. __To give new information when you feel the members are ready for it. __To assist the group in getting along well together. 35. __To discuss both the strong and the weak points of different solutions. To help the group understand how you feel about the -—problem. 36. __To get the job done. __To assist the group in getting along well together. B. Form used in pretestingyto select several interval scale items for the final questionnaire. We are interested in the things peeple feel are important or are unimportant in leading group discussions. You will be presented with a series of statements about concerns of group discussion leaders. Following each statement will be a seven-point scale. You are to indicate whether you feel the statement is important or unimportant. To keep the meeting from being boring. Important: : : : : : : :Unimportant 3 2 l O -l -2 -3 If you feel the statement is "very important" in leading a group discussion you would place a check mark in Space number 3. If you feel it is "pretty important" place a check in Space number 2. If you feel it is "Slightly important" check number 1. If you think it is neither important or unimportant check 0. If you feel it is "very unimportant" check -3. If "pretty unimportant" check -2. If "Slightly unimportant" check -1. The "0" or neutral Space on the scale may also be used for "I don't know" or "I don't think this scale applies." IMPORTANT: (1) Place your check marks in the middle of Spaces, not on the boundaries. (2) Be sure to check the scale for every statement, DO NOT OMIT ANY ITEMS. 60 (3) Never put more than one check mark on a single scale. (4) DO NOT look back and forth through the items, make each item a separate and independent judgment. (5) Your first impression, the immediate "feelings" about the item is what we want. 1. To give new information when you feel the members are ready for it. Important: : : : : : : :Unimportant 2. To get the job done on time. Important: : : : : : : :Unimportant 3. To ask questions that will cause the members to do more thinking. Important: : : :Unimportant 4. To assign members to tasks so more can be accomplished. Important: . . :Unimportant 5. To let the member reach a decision all by themselves. Important: : : : :Unimportant 6. To help the group to enjoy being together. Important: : : : : : : :Unimportant 61 7. To assure that each member is free to vote according to his own beliefs. Important: : : : : : : :Unimportant 8. To keep the discussion on the topic. Important: : : : : . : :Unimportant 9. To give everyone a chance to eXpress his opinion. Important: : : . . :Unimportant 10. To help the group understand how you feel about the problem. Important: : : : : : : :Unimportant 11. To vote by secret ballot. Important: : : : : ° : :Unimportant 12. To help the group to what you think is their best answer. Important: : : : : :Unimportant 13. To help the members to see how the discussion is related to the purpose of the group. Important: : : :Unimportant 14. To discuss both the strong and the weak points of different solutions. Important: : : : : : :Unimportant 1 ‘ . I I} ll“ '1 [Illlhll ill-8". ‘1' III I III 62 15. To get the job done. Important: : : : : : : :Unimportant 16. To assist the group in getting along well together. Important: : : : : :Unimportant 17. To know what the group and its members are doing. Important: : : : :Unimportant C. Final questionnaire used for the independent variable. We are interested in what you feel is important when you are leading . group discussion, particularly as an adult leader of a youth group. Listed below are several pairs of statements. Will you please read each pair of statements and place a mark in the Space in front of the statement that you feel is most important. INSTRUCTIONS: (1) Place your check marks clearly and carefully. (2) Do NOT omit any of the items. (3) Never check both of the items. (4) Do NOT look back and forth through the items, make each item a separate and independent judgment. (5) -Your first impression, the immediate "feelings" about the statements is what we want. Part I 1. __To give everyone a chance to express his opinion. __To know what the group and its members are doing. 2. __ To assign members to tasks so more can be accomplished. __To let the members reach a decision all by themselves. 63 3. __To know what the group and its members are doing. To help the members see how the discussion is related to the purposes of the group. 4. __To assist the group in getting along well together. __To help the group to what you think is their best answer. 5. __To get the job done. __To let the members reach a decision all by themselves. 6. _nTo know what the group and its members are doing. __To let the members reach a decision all by themselves. 7. __To get the job done. ___To assist the group in getting along well together. 8. __To help the members see how the discussion is related to the purposes of the group. __To assign members to tasks so more can be accomplished. 9. __To ask questions that will cause members to do more thinking. __To get the job done. 10. __To let the members reach a decision all by themselves. __To give new infbrmation when you feel the members are ready for it. PART II In this part you will be presented with a series of statements about concerns of group discussion leaders. Following each statement will be a seven-point scale. You are to indicate whether you feel the statement is important or unimportant. To keep the meeting from being boring. Important: : : : : : : :Unimportant 3 2 l O -1 -2 -3 If you feel the statement is "very important" in leading a group discussion you would place a check mark in space number 3. If you feel it is "pretty important" place a check in Space number 2. If you feel it is "slightly important" check number 1. If you think it is neither important or unimportant check 0. If you feel it is "very unimportant check -3. If "pretty unimportant" check -2. If "slightly unimportant check -1. The "0" or neutral Space on the scale may also be used for "I don't know" or "I don't think this scale applies." 64 IMPORTANT: (1) Place your check marks in the middle of Spaces, not on the boundaries. (2) Never put more than one check mark on a single scale. 11. To give new information when you feel the members are ready for it. 0. O. I 0 Important: : : . . :Unimportant 12. To keep the discussion on the topic. a O :1 .5. Important: : : 13. To help the group understand how you feel about the problem. Important: : : : : . :Unimportant 14. To vote by secret ballot. Important: : 5 50 "U 0 '3 H’ g H’ 15. To help the group to what you think is their best answer. Important: : : : ° ' :Unimportant 16. To help the members to see how the discussion is related to the purpose of the group. Important: : . :Unimportant 17. To get the job done. Important: )0 C D 50 'U 0 '3 E H‘ 65 18. To know what the group and its members are doing. Important: : : : :Unimportant Your name County Man Woman U Number of years that you have been a 4-H Club leader "1 mnmuumwgmu mum" mug ”WW Iii/1i ES 6788