FLDP.org

The classic example of the autocratic group is the military unit. Another good example is found in certain small businesses which have a board of directors elected from the stockholders. Often a single individual or a clique owns the controlling interest and the board, made up of minority stockholders, merely echoes the program, wants, and desires of the control group. The autocratic group usually carries the seeds of its own destruction. Removal, illness, or death of the autocratic leader normally results in a contest for power among his successors. Such a “palace revolution” may result in another dictator or a clique seizing power. It may result in the formation of a democratic group, or the group may dissolve into oblivion.

Evaluations of the relative effectiveness of the three major types of group process (democracy, autocracy, and laissez faire); have been carried out in many ways and at many levels. Of special note are some which have involved boys’ clubs, industrial groups, educational groups, and some experimental groups created solely for this purpose. The results are uniform enough that certain generalizations seem to be warranted.

Democratic groups have greater motivation toward work, more member satisfaction, and greater productivity. There is less discontent among members and less evidence of frustration and aggression. There is more friendliness, cooperation, and group-centered esprit when democracy prevails. Despite the group orientation it has been demonstrated that more individual initiative is displayed. When a group or its action is criticized there is little or no tendency to use an individual as a scapegoat.

The autocratic group cannot compete with the democratic in all-round productivity. Within these groups are found excessive irritability, hostility, and aggression, often directed toward fellow members as well as toward the autocratic leader. The members of such a group are apt to be apathetic in their general attitude even when secretly discontented. Individuals are much more dependent and show a minimum of creativity. When the autocrat is absent little or no action ensues. Criticisms of fellow members or attempts to dominate them are much more prevalent in this setting than when democracy prevails.

The principle characteristic of the laissez-faire group is its lack of productivity. Individuality is often exhibited, but cannot be channeled into useful fields. The general feeling of lack of progress tends to make the membership uninterested and apathetic.

A basic principle of rational behavior is that the means used must be consistent with the ends sought. This principle applies to both individual and group behavior. Thus, if one of the ends of our society and the groups that operate within it is to promote the basic goals of democracy, it would seem logical that democratic, rather than authoritarian or laissez-faire means should be used to attain those goals. Both the logic of the use of democratic means in a democratic society and the research findings reported in the discussion above point to the importance of using democratic group procedures for effective goal accomplishment.

Every group assembled does not necessarily have within it all of the needed information and resources to make valid decisions. When a group proceeds to make decisions and take actions without considering all of the relevant information available from expert sources it probably is acting on the basis of “pooled ignorance.” Groups appear to be as guilty as individuals acting as separate entities of not seeking relevant expert information before making decisions.

It should be emphasized that for all purposes the group has not always been shown to be superior to the individual, nor has the democratic group always been shown to be superior to the more centrally directed type. Especially where certain limited objectives are concerned there may be advantages in non-democratic action. In the long run, however, and whenever there are situations of great complexity, groups arrive at a larger proportion of correct solutions than do individuals or groups dominated by an individual.

In industry, among housewives, in the classroom, and even in the military it has been demonstrated that the involvement of people in group discussion and the reaching of decisions in a democratic atmosphere leads to more favorable attitudes toward the decision and better compliance with it.

One industrial study indicated that participation in decision making by all members of the group resulted in greater productivity, less resistance to change, and a lower turnover rate of employment than did either committee decision making or careful explanation of decisions made by others. Another study points out that when supervisors and subordinates were involved to a high degree in research planning and in the interpretation and analysis of the findings the results were better understood, emotionally accepted, and utilized.

During World War II a campaign was waged to induce housewives to use some of the less popular cuts of meat such as heart, kidney, and sweetbreads. With some groups the lecture method was used; with others a short opening statement followed by a group discussion was concluded by a show of hands by those willing to try these meats. The second method was ten times more effective than the first.

Similar results were obtained in a study which aimed at increasing the use of milk in the home; the group discussion method was more effective by a ratio of 3 to 1. In this experiment the duration of the results was also checked and found to be greatly increased following discussion group methods.

When individuals commit themselves to act in a certain way their decision is strengthened by an awareness that others are similarly committed. They do not wish to lose status by failure to follow through on a decision witnessed by their peers. One of the strongest motivating forces for an individual is to be respected and to have status in the eyes of the members of groups to which he considers it important to belong. This principle is one of the most important in establishing the superiority of group action over individual action.

It is obvious from the above discussion that human beings participate in many kinds of group situations in their efforts to satisfy their needs and desires and that these groups have influence in the lives of these individuals. In this book our major interest is, however, in the formal democratic group, and its major characteristics may be listed as follows:

1. The goals and objectives of such a group are established by group interaction.
2. The means adopted to achieve these are determined by the same process.
3. The interaction process is such that each member feels both freedom to contribute and responsibility for success.
4. Group consensus prevails, even though individuals do not completely agree, but disagreeing individuals feel free to present their points of view.
5. Ideas are dealt with on a basis of their value to the group rather than on a basis of who introduces them.
6. Those in position of formal leadership recognize that their major role is that of facilitating group process.