This Week's Lesson: Discussed Behavioral Theories Of Leaders ✓ Solved

This week's lesson discussed behavioral theories of leadership a

This week's lesson discussed behavioral theories of leadership and their ethical implications. The lesson covered the Iowa Study leadership styles (autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire) and the Michigan and Ohio studies comparing leaders' focus on tasks versus people. Consider and comment on the following questions: 1. Of the Iowa Study leadership styles (autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire), which style is most appealing to you? Are any of the styles ethically superior to any of the others? Why or why not? 2. With respect to the Michigan and Ohio Studies, do you think leaders who focus more on followers than on the job at hand are more ethical than other leaders? Is a balance better than being partial to one of the two dimensions? Given that the results of these studies were slightly different, which do you think got it most right?

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

The behavioral leadership studies from Iowa, Ohio State, and the University of Michigan shaped modern thinking about how leaders behave and how those behaviors affect performance and satisfaction (Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939; Halpin & Winer, 1957; Likert, 1961). The Iowa taxonomy (autocratic, democratic, laissez-faire) and the Ohio/Michigan task-vs-people dimensions raise not only practical questions about effectiveness but also normative questions about the ethics of different leadership approaches. Below I explain which Iowa style appeals most to me, evaluate whether any style is ethically superior, and assess the ethical implications of emphasizing followers versus tasks in light of Ohio and Michigan findings and contingency perspectives.

Question 1 — Preference among Iowa styles and ethical evaluation

Of the three Iowa styles, the democratic style is most appealing to me. Democratic leadership emphasizes participation, information-sharing, and respect for followers’ perspectives, and it aligns with contemporary notions of ethical leadership that prioritize dignity, procedural fairness, and stakeholder voice (Vroom & Yetton, 1973; Brown & Treviño, 2006). Democratic approaches tend to increase employee satisfaction and psychological ownership, which supports both individual well-being and sustainable organizational performance (Likert, 1961).

However, no single style is inherently or universally ethically superior. Ethical evaluation depends on normative criteria (e.g., utilitarian outcomes, rights-based respect, duty-based obligations) and context (Fiedler, 1967; Treviño & Nelson, 2017). Autocratic leadership can be ethically defensible in emergencies where fast, decisive action maximizes overall welfare (a utilitarian defense) or where leaders have a duty to protect safety. Conversely, autocracy may violate respect-for-persons principles when it systematically silences stakeholder voice (Treviño & Nelson, 2017). Laissez-faire is often ethically problematic when it amounts to abdication of responsibility; empirical evidence links laissez-faire behavior to poor outcomes and neglect of follower needs (Skogstad et al., 2007). Thus, democratic leadership often best balances respect and outcomes in normal organizational contexts, but ethical superiority is conditional, not absolute.

Question 2 — People-focus versus task-focus: ethics and effectiveness

The Ohio studies emphasized both initiating structure and consideration (task and people), with the most effective leaders scoring high on both dimensions (Halpin & Winer, 1957). The Michigan studies emphasized employee orientation as particularly influential (Likert, 1961). Ethically, leaders who focus on followers advance respect-based values—they treat employees as ends in themselves rather than merely instruments of productivity (Brown & Treviño, 2006). From a deontological perspective, strong follower orientation aligns with duties to respect autonomy and dignity.

Yet ethical leadership must also consider outcomes: a purely people-focused leader who neglects task demands may harm stakeholders (customers, shareholders, employees) by permitting poor performance or organizational decline. The Managerial Grid and Ohio results argue that balance—high concern for both people and production—yields the best combined results for performance and satisfaction (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Halpin & Winer, 1957). From consequentialist and stakeholder perspectives, this integrated approach is ethically preferable because it seeks to maximize welfare across constituencies (Judge et al., 2001).

Which study got it most right? Both Ohio and Michigan captured truths about leadership in different ways. Michigan’s emphasis on employee orientation highlights the ethical and motivational power of caring leadership (Likert, 1961). Ohio’s conclusion that leaders must also be strong on initiating structure underscores that people-focused ethics cannot ignore organizational responsibilities (Halpin & Winer, 1957). Fiedler’s contingency theory further reminds us that situation matters: context changes whether task or people emphasis is more effective (Fiedler, 1967). Therefore, the most robust ethical position is adaptive: a leader should prioritize follower well-being while maintaining task accountability, adjusting emphasis as circumstances demand (Northouse, 2019).

Practical ethical implications and recommendation

Practically, ethical leadership integrates respect, voice, and competence. Leaders should solicit input (as democratic models recommend) and ensure transparent decision rules so participation does not paralyze action (Vroom & Yetton, 1973). They should avoid laissez-faire abdication and be prepared to make autocratic choices when urgent safety or legal obligations demand rapid intervention, but document rationale to preserve accountability (Treviño & Nelson, 2017). Training programs should emphasize people-skills alongside planning and structuring capabilities so managers can operate at the “team” quadrant of the Managerial Grid (Blake & Mouton, 1964) and act ethically across contexts (Brown & Treviño, 2006).

Conclusion

In sum, I prefer democratic leadership because it fosters respect, voice, and engagement, but no style is universally ethically superior. Ohio and Michigan studies together suggest that ethical leadership requires both attention to people and attention to tasks, in an adaptive balance dependent on context. Ethical leaders therefore combine respect-based practices with competence and accountability, adapting their emphasis to achieve both human dignity and sustainable organizational outcomes (Northouse, 2019; Treviño & Nelson, 2017).

References

  • Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing.
  • Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616.
  • Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Halpin, A. W., & Winer, B. J. (1957). A factorial study of leader behavior descriptions. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Bureau of Educational Research.
  • Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376–407.
  • Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271–299.
  • Likert, R. (1961). New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice (8th ed.). Sage Publications.
  • Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(1), 80–92.
  • Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and Decision-Making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Related Assignments