Groupthink

581
Group Processes
pursue its goals, but a bad one can get in the way of a group’s functioning. What makes
a good leader? Psychologists once thought that the personalities of good and bad leaders were about the same, but we now know that certain personality traits often distinguish effective from ineffective leaders. For example, using tests similar to those that
measure the big-five traits described in the personality chapter, Colin Silverthorne
(2001) examined the characteristics of leaders in the United States, Thailand, and China.
He found that effective leaders in all three countries tended to score high on agreeableness, emotional stability, extraversion, and conscientiousness. Other researchers have
found that, in general, effective leaders are intelligent, success oriented, flexible, and confident (Chemers, Watson, & May, 2000).
Having particular personality traits does not guarantee good leadership ability, however. People who are effective leaders in one situation may be ineffective in another
(Chemers, 2000). The reason is that effective leadership also depends on the characteristics of the group members; the task at hand; and, most important, the interaction
between these factors and the leader’s style (Yun, Faraj, & Sims, 2005).
For many years, leadership research focused on two main types of leaders. The first,
called task-oriented leaders, provide close supervision, lead by giving orders, and
generally discourage group discussion (Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). Their style may make
them unpopular. The second, called person-oriented leaders, provide loose supervision, ask for group members’ ideas, and are generally concerned with subordinates’ feelings. They are usually well liked by the group, even when they must discipline a group
member (Brehm, Kassin, & Fein, 2005). More recently, additional leadership styles have
been identified. One of these styles is seen in transactional leaders; whose actions
depend on the actions of those they lead. They reward those who behave as the leader
wishes, and they correct or punish those who don’t. There are also transformational or
charismatic leaders (Bass & Riggio, 2006). These people concentrate on creating a vision
of the group’s goals, inspiring others to pursue that vision, and giving their followers
reason to respect and admire them.
Do men or women make better leaders? Research by Alice Eagly and her colleagues
at first found that, overall, men and women are equally capable leaders. It also looked
as though men tend to be more effective when success requires a task-oriented leader
and that women tend to be more effective when success requires a more person-oriented
leader. In other words, it appeared that people of each gender tend to be most effective
when they are acting in a manner consistent with gender-role traditions (Eagly & Karau,
1991; Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995). Perhaps the reason was that some people did
not like female leaders who act in a “masculine” manner or occupy leadership positions
traditionally held by men (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992).
A somewhat different picture of gender and leadership has emerged from Eagly’s
more recent research. For one thing, she found that females are generally more likely
than males to display a transformational leadership style. Further, when women display
a transactional style, they tend to be more encouraging than transactional male leaders, focusing more on using rewards rather than punishments to modify group members’ behaviors. Finally, and in contrast to earlier findings, Eagly’s results now suggest
that women may be slightly more effective leaders overall than men (Eagly, JohannesenSchmidt, & van Engen, 2003).
Groupthink
task-oriented leaders Leaders who
provide close supervision, lead by giving
directions, and generally discourage
group discussion.
person-oriented leaders Leaders who
provide loose supervision, ask for group
members’ ideas, and are generally concerned with subordinates’ feelings.
The emphasis on group decisions in most large organizations is based on the belief that
several people working together will make better decisions than will individuals working alone. As noted in the chapter on thought, language, and intelligence, this belief is
generally correct; yet under certain circumstances groups have been known to make
amazingly bad decisions (Kerr & Tindale, 2004). Consider, for example, the fact that,
in 1986, administrators at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
ignored engineers’ warnings about the effects of cold weather and decided to launch
the space shuttle Challenger. The spacecraft exploded seventy-three seconds after liftoff,
killing all aboard. After analyzing these and other disastrous decisions, Irving Janis