5 types of leadership proposed by group psychology

We all know one or more people who seem to have been born with a special gift, that of knowing how to lead., organize, command, order, innovate, motivate or direct the actions of others. We could talk about dozens of functions that would make up different types of leadership, however it will be easier to review the characteristics of each one.

First of all, it should be noted that The attitudes of the different types of leadership are supported by several pillars that we can easily identify. For example, in the development of good social skills, the ability to empathize without causing harm to the ultimate objectives pursued by the group, the intuition that is correct when choosing quickly and effectively those aspects that are relevant to to distractors, etc.

Surely each of us has encountered one or more people like these throughout our lives or, perhaps, we ourselves are one of them. But be careful, let’s not fall into common nonsense, because we have to keep two aspects in mind when we talk about leadership.

The aspects that all types of leadership share

As we have commented, There are two points to consider before we can call a person a leader. whatever the type of actions carried out:

On the one hand, Not all the people who offer themselves or try to become leaders of a group are the ones who are best qualified. to exercise this leadership role within the group itself. On the other hand, like all attitudes favorable to the current of social desirability, the truth is that More people consider themselves touched by the wand of leadership than actually are.

Touched by a wand? The matter is more complex. Yes, more than magic or talking about an ability in which our genetics can have a relevant influence.

Even to make this brief introduction we have left aside a certainty that when it comes to going deeper we cannot ignore: a person who is a good leader for a group –that has certain characteristics and objectives– it doesn’t have to be for someone else. A fantastic example of this is not offered by team sports.

Rare is the weekend that a coach is not relieved of his position. Trainers who are fired most of the time for not having known how to guide the group they lead in the appropriate way and not so much for being more or less skilled when it comes to instilling technical aspects related to the sport in which they practice.

The problem is that the same recipe does not work for different groups, that the way of working required by a team created with a limited budget is not the same as that required by another team full of stars.

5 types of leadership proposed from research in group psychology

The word leadership in psychology is linked to a name and an experiment: the one carried out by Kurt Lewin in the context of the Second World War. In this historical framework we witness the rise to power of several dictators who were able to get a large number of people to believe their project, whether it was wrong or not.

Read Also: I don't feel like getting ready anymore, what's wrong with me?

Thus, a question is highlighted that, although it seems obvious, is still relevant: For a new leader to emerge, there needs to be a power vacuum. or a strong questioning of what is already established.

If we continue pulling the historical thread, we can see how The interest in the study of leadership that initially appeared in the military and political hierarchy has spread to other areassuch as educational, sports -of which we have previously given an example-or the business one.

In other words, since it has been seen how leadership and the different types of leadership influence the productive aspect, it has become an issue of universal relevance.

Currently, unfortunately we do not have a single classification of leadership styles. Thus, we are going to describe one of the most practical and recognized by group psychology. This classification differentiates five types of leadership, two more than those initially established by Kurt Lewin.

1. Delegative leadership (laissez-faire)

We talk about the invisible leader or what he allows to be done when delegative leadership is exercised. It is a kind of manager whose task is to distribute tasks. It is especially effective in those groups made up of highly trained and motivated people who are just waiting for someone to give them the direction to follow.

That is, this type of leader is the one who ensures that the guidelines serve as a link or means of communication with the rest of the members of the group. The danger of the delegated leader is generated by situations in which his action is necessary and he does not intervene. Another danger of this type of leadership is that of relaxation. When a leader only delegates, sometimes some other worker can relax and stop doing their task correctly.

Read Also: Transform negative thoughts into positive ones: how can we do it?

As they claim Escandon-Barbosa and Hurtado-Ayala (2016), “It is important to keep in mind that too much freedom given to the employee can lead to low levels of performancesince it is important to have a control entity that evaluates employee productivity and the impact of their decisions on the company.”

We are faced with a leader who, if he sins, sins by default, and therefore, it is easy for a destabilizing element to cause everything to get out of hand. An example of a delegative leader could be Gandalf in this scene.

2. Autocratic leadership

Unlike the previous leader, The autocratic leader is an interventionist leader. This leader’s channel is unidirectional, since he only says but does not listen to the group he leads. On the other hand, he is usually a very controlling leader who works especially well in those groups that, being motivated, have many doubts about how to carry out the tasks entrusted to them.

The danger of this leader is that he can be really demotivating for groups that are very prepared, causing everyone to fall off the cliff once he has decided – unknowingly – to head towards him.

The autocratic leader usually harbors a feeling of superiority over the people he leads, a contamination that can make the alert described above much more dangerous. An example of an autocratic leader in history is Margaret Thatcher.

According to Carbó and Pérez (1996), the negative aspects of this type of leadership are several. One of these aspects is the existence of a difficult relationship between group members. Individuals are very egocentric and there is a considerable degree of submission to the leader. The authors state that “collective performance increases at first but in the long run it decreases as a consequence of the growing frustration and defensive reactions that occur”.

3. Democratic leadership

As you may have guessed, it has a lot to do with the justification of many Western political systems. The democratic leader tries to maximize communicative bidirectionality. Directing, but without forgetting the importance of being sensitive to the feedback that the group provides regarding their decisions. Furthermore, it is the permanent consulting element that characterizes this type of leadership.

Carbó and Pérez (1996)they point out that under this leadership “group consciousness is relatively strong, which is
reflects with expressions with which they refer to the collective, and not to the individual“. As for the results “are inferior to those achieved under authoritarian leadership, even so, the work carried out shows a greater originalitywhich we can attribute to the possibility of express ideas freely and encourage creativity“.

He is a good leader for groups that are prepared but do not have much motivation. The fact of feeling heard can be the best remedy for this deficit, thus significantly increasing their interest, both in the procedures and in the objectives. An example of a democratic leader in history is Nelson Mandela.

4. Transactional leadership

Transactional leadership is focused on objectives. The leader takes on the role of guardian of the group’s motivation. He operates by giving rewards or imposing punishments based on performance or interest.

Read Also: Eating disorder not otherwise specified (EDA): what does it consist of?

This type of leader, if skilled with his task, is good for long and tedious processes in which the group does not have and cannot easily find intrinsic motivation – associated with the task itself – in what it has to do.

Thus, only those that are external can act as rewards, a good leader will be someone who focuses on their distribution and manages to do it in an effective way.

The danger of this type of leadership lies in what surrounds the objective, such as the environment within the group itself, which is often damaged by competitiveness against these rewards we are talking about (promotions, vacations, flexibility, etc.). An example of transactional leadership is that of soccer coaches..

5. Transformational leadership

Transformational leadership has the leader focused on the motivation of the group, but from the task. His intention is for the group to achieve the objectives, yes, but without undermining other objectives. These lateral purposes can be very different and varied: the acquisition of skills of the group members, the climate that is generated within the group, the care of the environment, etc.

This type of leader is especially good when he has to lead a group that does not have a high degree of knowledge or motivation and on which the pressure to achieve main objectives is not high. An example of charismatic leadership is John. F.Kennedy.

As we see, the types of leadership proposed from research in group psychology constitute very definitive profiles. However, when managing and leading a group, leaders do not always behave in a unique way, but diversity is usually the norm.