Iowa Studies and the Leadership Continuum

The most famous early behavioural research on leadership was the Iowa Studies, run by the German-American psychologist Kurt Lewin and his graduate students in the late 1930s. The studies identified three classical leadership behaviours that still appear in every leadership textbook today: autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire. They also opened the door to a richer model, the Tannenbaum and Schmidt continuum, which is one of the more useful tools a school head can keep in her pocket.

The Iowa Studies

Kurt Lewin and his team studied groups of ten-year-old boys working on craft projects under three different leadership styles. The same boys experienced each style at different times.

Kurt Lewin and his associates at the University of Iowa initiated studies to identify effective leader behaviour. They considered three behaviours: autocratic, democratic, laissez-faire.

The findings of the Iowa Studies became foundational. The styles are still the starting point for almost any discussion of leadership behaviour.

The autocratic leader

Makes unilateral decisions. Dictates work methods. Limits workers’ knowledge of goals to the next step. Gives punitive feedback.

An autocratic leader makes decisions alone. She tells the group what to do and how to do it. She controls information; the group sees only the next step, not the bigger picture. Feedback is harsh when given.

In a school: the principal who decides without consulting, who issues detailed instructions to teachers, and who criticises sharply when work falls short, is operating in autocratic mode. The mode has its uses (emergencies, new staff, high-stakes situations) but produces resentment if it is the leader’s permanent style.

The democratic leader

Involves the group in decision making. Lets workers decide on the work method. Makes the overall goals known. Uses feedback for coaching.

A democratic leader consults the group on major decisions. She sets goals collaboratively or at least communicates them clearly. She lets people decide how to do the work within those goals. Feedback is coaching, not punishment.

In a school: the principal who consults senior teachers before making curriculum changes, who explains the why behind decisions, and who treats appraisals as growth conversations, is operating in democratic mode. This mode works well in steady-state schools with experienced staff.

The laissez-faire leader

Gives the group full freedom. Provides needed material. Participates only to answer questions. Avoids giving feedback.

A laissez-faire leader (French for “let it be”) stays out of the way. She makes resources available, answers questions when asked, and otherwise lets the group decide everything. She rarely gives feedback.

In a school: the principal who hires senior teachers and then lets them run their sections almost entirely, only stepping in when explicitly asked, is operating in laissez-faire mode. This works with highly experienced, motivated staff. It fails badly with new or struggling staff who need direction.

What Lewin found

Children working under the democratic leader produced the highest quality work and the highest motivation. The autocratic group produced the most output but with more dependency and resentment. The laissez-faire group produced the least output and was the most chaotic.

The findings made democratic leadership look like the answer. Decades of later research showed it was more complicated.

The findings did not provide a clear guideline and there was overlapping of behaviours between the attributes.

The three styles existed on a continuum, not as discrete categories. Real leaders mixed them. And the right style depended on the situation, a finding that pointed towards contingency thinking.

Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s continuum

In 1958, Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt published a paper in the Harvard Business Review that became one of the most reprinted articles in leadership literature. They argued that the Iowa Studies’ three styles were too crude. Leadership behaviour, they said, lay on a continuum from fully autocratic to fully democratic, with several gradations in between.

Tannenbaum and Schmidt expanded the views of democratic and autocratic leadership from a simplistic choice between two distinctive behaviours at extreme ends to a continuum of seven behaviours.

The seven behaviours

The Tannenbaum-Schmidt continuum, from most autocratic to most democratic:

A school head can think of these seven as a dial she can turn for any given decision.

1. Tells. Emergency evacuation procedure: she sets it and announces it.
2. Sells. New uniform policy: she decides and explains the reasoning.
3. Tests. Annual school timetable: she presents a draft and invites questions.
4. Consults. New assessment policy: she presents a tentative version and modifies based on staff input.
5. Suggests. Annual parent engagement plan: she presents the goal and asks for ideas.
6. Joins. Year-end staff retreat agenda: she sets the limits and asks the staff to design within them.
7. Delegates. Department-level lesson plan format: she lets the head of department decide.

A leader who uses only one of these for every decision is wasting the dial. A leader who turns the dial deliberately for each decision uses the team better.

What the dial depends on

Tannenbaum and Schmidt named three sets of forces that should shape where the leader sets the dial.

1. Forces in the leader. Her confidence in the team. Her own preferred style. Her time constraints. Her values.
2. Forces in the employees. Their need for autonomy. Their experience. Their tolerance for ambiguity. Their interest in the issue.
3. Forces in the situation. The stakes. The time available. The complexity. The history.

This approach also set the stage for later theories that viewed leadership in terms of the manager’s particular situation.

This is the seed of contingency thinking in leadership. The right leadership behaviour depends on the leader, the followers, and the situation, three sets of forces that the leader must read each time.

Research findings on behavioural style

Later research on the behavioural approach refined the picture. The handout summarises the findings:

In situations where subordinates experience excessive pressure because of deadlines or unclear tasks, leaders who are people-oriented will increase employee satisfaction and performance.

In high-pressure conditions, people-oriented leadership matters more. Staff under stress need support, not just direction.

When the task is interesting or satisfying, there is less need for leaders to be people-oriented.

When the work itself is engaging, the leader’s people-orientation is less crucial. Staff are motivated by the work.

When it is clear how to perform the task and what the goals are, leaders who are people-oriented will increase employee satisfaction, while those who are task-oriented will increase dissatisfaction.

When the task is clear, adding more task structure annoys staff. They know what to do; they want to feel valued while doing it.

When people do not know what to do, or individuals do not have the knowledge or skills to do the job, it is more important for the leaders to be production-oriented than people-oriented.

When staff are inexperienced or confused, they need direction more than warmth.

These findings produced a clear conclusion: the right leadership style depends on the followers’ clarity and capability. This is the contingency view in early form.

Flashcard

What is the Tannenbaum and Schmidt continuum, and why is it useful for a school head?

Tap to reveal

Answer

A continuum of seven leadership behaviours from fully autocratic (tells) to fully democratic (delegates).

The seven points: Tells, Sells, Tests, Consults, Suggests, Joins, Delegates.

A school head can think of these as a dial she turns for each decision. An emergency evacuation policy: Tells. A new uniform policy: Sells. A staff retreat agenda: Joins. A department lesson plan format: Delegates.

The right point depends on:

1. The leader. Her confidence, style, time.
2. The followers. Their autonomy, experience, interest.
3. The situation. Stakes, time, complexity.

A leader who uses only one point of the dial is wasting the team. A leader who turns the dial deliberately uses the team better.