Focused Leadership and Cohesiveness in Small Groups

Abstract

When leadership is conceived as a group variable, as a set of functions which must be performed in the group, the possibility of a gradient of leadership is created, i.e., leadership may be distributed among many group members or focused on one or a few members ( 11). Marked differences of opinion have been expressed as to the consequences for group functioning of various distributions of leadership. This paper will (a) examine some findings in the research literature which can be co-ordinated profitably in a frame of reference of focused leadership, (b) report research findings supporting the position that focused leadership is associated with greater group cohesiveness, and (c) in a preliminary fashion formulate some of the conditions under which varying degrees of leadership distribution are related to group cohesiveness. Bales and his associates (12) in their study of role differentiation in small groups have described an aspect of group structure, status consensus, which they find related to group effectiveness and cohesiveness. Status consensus is the degree of agreement among the group members in their rankings of all group members on such task-related criteria as guiding the group toward its goal and contributing new ideas for the group. Operationally, status consensus is defined by Kendall's coefficient of concordance, W. Agreement on the relative task-status of all group members facilitates interaction, minimizes conflict and promotes group efficiency and harmony (2, 12). On both the operational level and conceptual level, the concept status consensus involves certain assumptions regarding the structure of small groups and the relationship between group structure and group cohesiveness. First, it is assumed that a full and complete ordering of the group members on such scales as status and influence is characteristic of small groups. Such an assumption is implicit in the index of status consensus, since discrepancies at all ranks carry equal weight in determining the magnitude of W. The assumption is explicit in the conceptual interpretation of status consensus as the degree to which the group is in accord on the relative task-status of all group members. Intuitively, it seems very unlikely that small discussion groups develop such a well-differentiated task-status order that each member can be distinguished reliably from every other group member. More probable is a partial ordering of the group members. ' Portions of this paper were read at the meeting of the American Psychological Associa