The Effects of Democratic Leadership on Group Member Satisfaction

Previous research highlights one of the paradoxes of different leadership styles: Group members may be more satisfied with democratic leadership, or group members may be more satisfied with autocratic leadership. A meta-analytic integration of research evidence addressing this paradox revealed that there was, in general, a significant, small tendency for groups experiencing democratic leadership to be more satisfied than groups experiencing autocratic leadership. However, these effects were moderated by several variables, including the reality of the groups, the size of the groups, the gender composition of the groups, and the potency of leadership style. These moderating variables may be important given the recent push toward adoption of democratic decision making in organizations. The discussion considers theoretical accounts for these effects of leadership style on member satisfaction.

[1]  Su Olsson,et al.  The Handbook of Gender and Work , 2001 .

[2]  Mary E. Graham,et al.  Group Gender Composition and Work Group Relations: Theories, Evidence, and Issues , 1999 .

[3]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Meta-analysis and the study of group dynamics. , 1998 .

[4]  James B. Shaw,et al.  The Effects of Diversity on Small Work Group Processes and Performance , 1998 .

[5]  Steven Hutchison,et al.  What Works for the Gander Does Not Work as Well for the Goose: The Effects of Leader Behavior , 1998 .

[6]  Linda N. Jewell.  Contemporary Industrial/Organizational Psychology , 1997 .

[7]  Mary L. Fennell,et al.  Gender, interaction, and leadership , 1996 .

[8]  S. Rogelberg,et al.  Gender Diversity, Team Decision Quality, Time on Task, and Interpersonal Cohesion , 1996 .

[9]  John Gastil.  A Meta-Analytic Review of the Productivity and Satisfaction of Democratic and Autocratic Leadership , 1994 .

[10]  Gordon W. Russell,et al.  The Social Psychology of Sport , 1993 .

[11]  E. Salas,et al.  Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. , 1991 .

[12]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Salience, motivation and artifact as contributions to the relation between participation rate and leadership , 1989 .

[13]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Group Size, Leadership Behavior, and Subordinate Satisfaction , 1989 .

[14]  Brian Mullen,et al.  Advanced BASIC meta-analysis , 1989 .

[15]  P. Devine.  Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. , 1989 .

[16]  Carol Watson.  When a Woman Is the Boss , 1988 .

[17]  W. Wood,et al.  Meta-analytic review of sex differences in group performance. , 1987, Psychological bulletin.

[18]  Earl Steven Schliesman.  Relationship between the congruence of preferred and actual leader behaviors and subordinate satisfaction with leadership , 1987 .

[19]  Rae R. Newton,et al.  Gender, leadership style, and subordinate satisfaction: An experiment , 1986 .

[20]  Brian Mullen,et al.  Basic Meta-Analysis: Procedures and Programs , 1985 .

[21]  C. W. McNichols,et al.  Organizational Effectiveness as a Function of Managerial Style, Situational Environment, and Effectiveness Criterion , 1984 .

[22]  R. Rosenthal.  Meta-analytic procedures for social research , 1984 .

[23]  Stuart M. Schmidt,et al.  Sex of leader, leader behavior, and subordinate satisfaction , 1983 .

[24]  E. Berscheid,et al.  Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior. 3rd ed. , 1981 .

[25]  Alvin Snadowsky.  Member Satisfaction in Stable Communication Networks , 1974 .

[26]  A. H. Stein,et al.  The socialization of achievement orientation in females. , 1973 .

[27]  M. Scontrino.  The effects of fulfilling and violating group members' expectations about leadership style , 1972 .

[28]  W. Rosenbaum,et al.  Morale and productivity consequences of group leadership style, stress, and type of task. , 1971, The Journal of applied psychology.

[29]  R. Denhardt.  Leadership Style, Worker Involvement, and Deference to Authority. , 1970 .

[30]  R. E. Miles,et al.  Organizational Leadership Satisfaction and Productivity: A Comparative Analysis* , 1968 .

[31]  R. Meade.  An experimental study of leadership in India. , 1967, The Journal of social psychology.

[32]  B. Indik,et al.  Organization Size and Member Participation , 1965 .

[33]  J. Mullen.  Differential Leadership Modes and Productivity in a Large Organization , 1965 .

[34]  R. L. Hamblin,et al.  Some Effects of Close and Punitive Styles of Supervision , 1964, American Journal of Sociology.

[35]  J. Lyle.  Communication, Group Atmosphere, Productivity, and Morale in Small Task Groups , 1961 .

[36]  E. McGinnies,et al.  Comparison of two styles of leadership in small group discussion. , 1959 .

[37]  P. Slater.  Contrasting Correlates of Group Size , 1958 .

[38]  R. S. Albert,et al.  Jury behavior as a function of the prestige of the foreman and the nature of leadership. , 1958 .

[39]  U. Foa.  Relation of Workers Expectation to Satisfaction with Supervisor , 1957 .

[40]  Launor F. Carter,et al.  The Behavior of Authoritarian and Equalitarian Personalities in Groups , 1956 .

[41]  N. C. Morse,et al.  The experimental change of a major organizational variable. , 1956, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[42]  L. Berkowitz.  Sharing leadership in small, decision-making groups. , 1953, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[43]  Ronald Lippitt,et al.  Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created “Social Climates” , 1939 .