The IOWA Studies

• In the University of IOWA, the study attempted to classify and study

the effects of different styles of leadership on the group.
• In a series of experiments, the IOWA researchers manipulated three
leadership styles to determine their effect on the attitude and
productivity of subordinates.
• Leadership was classified into three different behavior types
according to the leader’s style of handling several decision making
situations prevailing in the experiment.
• The leaders’ styles of handling decision making were grouped as
Authoritarian, Democratic and Laissez-faire leadership styles.
The IOWA Studies Leadership Styles
• The Authoritarian Leaders: Here, the leaders were very directive and
allow no participation in decision making. They structured the
complete work situation for their subordinates. Leaders took full
authority and assumed full responsibility from the initiation to
completion of task.
• The Democratic Leader: Here, the leaders encourage group
discussions and decision making. Subordinates are always informed
about conditions affecting their jobs and encouraged to express their
ideas and make suggestions.
• Laissez-faire Leadership: Here, leaders give complete freedom to the
group and they leave it up to the subordinates to make individual
decisions on their own. Leaders provide no leadership in this style.
 Summaries of some of the results of the
IOWA study
• They discovered that subordinates prefer the democratic style. Current
trend in leadership studies is towards a wider use of participatory
management practices because they are consistent with supportive and
collegial models which are characteristic of modern organizations.
• Generally it has been discovered that subordinates prefer the laissez-faire
leadership style over the authoritarian style because for some of the
subordinates, “even chaos is preferred to rigidity”.
• Authoritarian leaders elicited either aggressive or apathetic behavior that
is considered to be reactions to the frustrations caused by the
authoritarian leader.
• Study also showed that apathetic behavior changed to aggressive behavior
when the leadership style changed from authoritarian to laissez-faire. The
laisser-faire leader produced the greatest amount of aggressive behavior.
• Production was slightly higher under the authoritarian leader than under
the democratic leader but was lowest under the laissez-faire leadership.
Criticisms and Importance of IOWA Studies
• Criticism: With time the experiments of the IOWA University were criticized
because of the fact that many variables were not controlled for and also
that the experimentation was crude. This was taken to mean that their
methodology was faulty.
• This criticism notwithstanding, the study still stands out as a landmark in an
attempt to determine the effects of leadership behavior on group’s attitude
and productivity.
• Importance
1. It has helped to focus attention on the investigation of leadership
behavior.
2. It has provided a useful basis for describing and classifying alternative
leadership behavior styles.
3. The three leadership styles identified are common place in literature and
among practitioners in Educational Administration.
• The studies of University of IOWA on leaders’ behavior were carried out in
 The Ohio State Studies

• These studies were focused on identifying leader behavior that were

important for the attainment of group or organizational goals.
• They identified two dimensions of leader behavior:
- Initiating structure and
- Consideration.
• These two dimensions are used to answer the questions:
What type of behavior do leaders display?
What effect do these leader behaviour have on work group
performance and satisfaction?
• Initiating structure is concerned about getting the job done while
consideration is concerned about the workers.
 The Ohio State Studies Contd

• During their studies, researchers from the disciplines of Psychology,

Sociology and Economics developed and used the Leader Behaviour
Descriptive Questionnaire (LBDQ) to study leadership in different
types of groups and situations.
• Group responses to the LBDQ were subjected to factor analysis; A
mathematical technique that permits identification of a small set of
common dimensions undergirding a large set of questionnaire
responses.
• From the factor analysis, two dimensions that characterized the
behavior of leaders in groups and situations were identified.
• These are initiating structure and consideration.
Initiating structure
Initiating structure refers to when a
leader focuses directly on
organizational performance goals,
organizes and defines tasks, assigns
work, establishes channels of
communication, defines relationships
with subordinates and evaluates work
group performances.

Leaders who initiate structure assign

members to particular tasks,
maintains definite standard of
performance, emphasize meeting
deadlines, encourage the use of
uniform processes, they let staff
members know what is expected of
them and see to it that staff members
are working up to capacity.
 Consideration
• Consideration refers to the extent to which a leader exhibits trust,
respect, warmth, support and concerns for the welfare of
subordinates.
• Leaders, who manifest considerations listen to staff members’ ideas,
are friendly and approachable; treat all staff members as equal and
frequently use employees’ ideas.
• A high consideration score indicates psychological closeness between
leader and subordinate and a low consideration score indicates a
more psychological distance and impersonal approach on the side of
the leader.
 Four Leadership Behaviors Resulting from the Ohio State Behavioral Studies

High structure

Low structure

High consideration
High consideration
111 11

1V 1
High structure

Low initiating Low consideration

Low consideration
 Ohio State Leadership Grid
• From the Ohio State studies, a two dimensional leadership model
emerged. The dimensions are independent thus resulting in four
leadership behaviors. Quadrants I,II, III and IV. Each represents a style.
• From their findings, some of the effects of the four styles on subordinate
performance and satisfaction can be seen in these research examples:
• Educational superintendents who are rated as effective leaders by both
staff and school board members were described as high in both
initiating structure and consideration. This was postulated by Andrew
Halpin (1956).
• Effective principals had high scores in structure and consideration than
ineffective principals. This study was done by Allen Brown (1967).
• Performance evaluation of school principals’ leadership behavior were
positively related to consideration and negatively related to domination.
Ohio State Leadership Studies Contd
• LBDQ was first developed by John Hemphill and Alvin Connes (1950).
It was later reformed by Andrew Halpin and B.J. Winer in 1952.
• Learners’ performances were also truly related to principals
leadership behavior of both initiation and consideration.
• In sum the two-dimensional theory of leader behavior that evolved
from the Ohio State leadership studies represent widely accepted
research approach to the study and practice of leadership.
 Importance of the Ohio State Studies

• This approach clearly demonstrates the two dimensions of leadership

behavior that they are real and observable and they account for a
great proportion of actual leader behavior.
• The study shows that quadrant II results in higher satisfaction and
performance among school administrators than any of the other
three leadership behaviors.
• The Ohio State studies is said to have provided a framework for
solving problems in organizations. This is because leadership behavior
can be shifted in the desired direction.
• For instance structure and consideration can be treated as dependent
variables in leadership development and training programmes.
• Thus we can shift leadership behavior in the desired direction from
low structure to high and from low consideration to high
consideration.
 The Michigan Studies

• About the time the Ohio State leadership studies were conducted, a
series of leadership studies were in progress at the University of
Michigan Institute for social research.
• They used an approach to identify leaders who were rated as either
effective or ineffective and then studied their behavior in an attempt
to develop consistent patterns of behavior that differentiated
effective and ineffective leaders.
• The researchers identified two distinct leadership behaviors that were
very similar to the initiating structure and consideration dimensions
from the Ohio state studies. The two dimensions are called:
1. Production-centered leader and
2. Employee-centered leader
 Production-Centered Leader Behavior

• This is similar to high initiating structure leader behavior.

• It emphasizes employee tasks and methods used to accomplish
them.
• These types of leaders set high work standards, organize tasks
carefully, prescribe work methods to be followed and closely
supervise subordinates’ work.
Employee-Centered Leader Behavior
• This is similar to high consideration leadership behavior.
• This leader emphasizes the employee’s personal needs and the
development of interpersonal leaderships.
• The leader tends to have supportive relations with subordinates, uses
group rather than individual decision making, encourages
subordinates to set and achieve high performance goals and
endeavors to treat subordinates in a sensitive considerate way.
 Employee-Centered Leader Behavior Contd

• Thousands of employees ranging from skilled to highly professional

individuals completed the questionnaire of the studies.
• Initial findings showed that most productive work groups tended to
have leaders who were employee centered rather than production
centered.
• Subsequent studies found that leaders with the best production
records were both production centered and employee centered. The
Michigan research findings have not been very consistent.
• In comparison, the Ohio State leadership studies are more famous in
the educational setting.
• This is because of the number of studies that were generated by the
initiating structure and consideration dimensions.
• Many of the studies were done in school organizations.
 Leadership Behavior Theories: Similarities and Conclusions

• The three theories attempt to explain leadership in terms of the

behavior of the leader i.e. what the leader does.
• They studied the effect of behavior on productivity and satisfaction.
• IOWA studies identified & isolated three leadership behaviors while
the Ohio and Michigan studies isolated two dimensions of leader
behavior. Task orientation or people orientation.
• Situational factors are also known to affect leadership behavior. These
factors may include:
a)Differences in the task to be completed.
b)Differences in the make-up of the group to be led.
c)Differences in the external environment of the organization.
• All these factors have a bearing on the functions performed by
leaders and also on the appropriate leadership behavior to be used in
 Leadership Behavior Theories:
Summaries
• The IOWA studies were experimental: manipulated several decision-
making situations and tested different leadership styles to measure
effects of style on outcome.
• Ohio State studies used survey method. Questionnaires were
completed by leaders, supervisors, subordinates and peers. Generally
high initiating structure and consideration increased productivity and
satisfaction. But findings were inconsistent.
• University of Michigan studies also the survey method.
Questionnaires were completed by leaders, supervisors, subordinates
and peers. Findings showed that a mix of employee and production
centred leadership increased productivity and satisfaction.