231

status. In practice the two socio-emotional variables will probably go hand in hand
with the development of differential status.
When reviewing the various variables that can have an influence on status
differentiation in the group, it is clear that status differentiation is a complex process,
in which the various factors through which a status structure is eventually established
in the group can be interdependent.

2.6 The establishment and anchoring of status in a group

Status differentiation as aspect of the total group process is present in the group right
from the initial phase. Initially it may be based on external status characteristics and
dominance behaviour, while participation, abilities and socio-emotional behaviour
may confirm these initial evaluations at a later stage. A re-evaluation of status can
also take place on the basis of the latter variables.
Through this process of status differentiation all group members eventually
receive a particular status level, which can be ordered hierarchically from high to low,
and which could be referred to as the status structure of the group.
An important factor in the development of this status structure is that the
members should agree amongst themselves about the evaluation and status
classification of each member in this status structure. This is called status consensus.
The status structure of the group is stabilised once status consensus has been
achieved.
Although status differentiation takes place in all groups right from the start, all
groups do not achieve status consensus and a stable status structure equally fast.
Heinecke and Bales (1953) argue for example that right from the start there were
groups with high status consensus as well as groups with low status consensus
amongst leaderless groups who met four times. They believe that groups with high
status consensus as well as groups with low status consensus engage in a “struggle for
status” accompanied by socio-emotional conflict. Within groups with high status
consensus this conflict was sharply focused during the second session, while the
conflict amongst low status-consensus groups was not as focused and stretched over a
longer period. These researchers also showed that groups with high status consensus
were more efficient in the achievement of the group goal and more satisfied with the

231
 232

group and the group’s management and solution of problems, than was the case with
groups with low-status consensus.
Fisek and Ofshe (in Ofshe, 1973) did minute-by-minute observation of 59
discussion groups. This research demonstrated that discussion groups could differ to
a large degree right from the start with regard to status differentiation and status
consensus. They found for example that about half of their groups showed clear and
stable status differentiation right at the beginning but the other groups only developed
status and dominance structures during the course of the group process. These groups
never developed the clear differentiation and stability of the former groups. These
initially undifferentiated groups of Fisek and Ofshe correspond to a large extent with
the low consensus groups of Heinecke and Bales. In both these experiments there are
signs of a continuous status struggle in the low status consensus groups. The
participation of the members does not correlate highly with their perception of the
participation and consequent status evaluation of each other. Fisek and Ofshe
indicate in this regard that although these groups often developed a dominance
hierarchy, members were not fully conscious of the hierarchy and did not have
consensus about it.
It could rightfully be said that without status consensus there is no consistency in
the evaluations by group members of each other and that the status structure does not
stabilise as easily.
With regard to the establishment and stabilisation of the status structure in a
group Sherif and Sherif (1964: 153-156) make a particularly interesting contribution.
Their experimental research demonstrated that the highest statuses crystallise and
stabilise first in a group and then the lowest statuses. The rest of the group continues
to compete for the intermediate status positions. This early stabilisation of the high
and low status positions is called the process of “end-anchoring” in the development
of the status structure.
When a stable status structure has developed in a group, this status structure can
influence the perception and evaluation of member’s behaviour. Harvey (1953) as
well as Sherif, White and Harvey (1955) asked members of groups with a relatively
stable status structure to predict their own and other member’s achievement in a
uncomplicated game. In both experiments the researchers found that high status
members overestimated their own ability, while low status members underestimated

232
233

their own ability. The members with low status also overestimated the achievement
of high status members, while the group as a whole also underestimated the
achievement of the low status members. The results are even more interesting in the
light of the fact that neither the status nor the predicted achievement of the members
showed a significant relationship to the actual achievement of the group members.
The effect of this tendency is that it contributes to the strengthening of the
existing structure and therefore maintains it. High status members not only have
more opportunities to act, but there is also a bigger probability that their actions will
be seen as correct, which enhances their superiority even further.

3. Status congruence

As was indicated above status consensus, i.e. the mutual consensus about the way in
which group members evaluate and rank each other, is of great importance in the
stabilisation of the status structure in the group and this status structure determines the
interaction in the group, the initiation of activities, the distribution of rewards and the
way in which the group members observe and evaluate each others’ activities.
However, status consensus is not the only phenomenon, which contributes to the
stabilisation of the status structure in the group and status congruence also plays an
important role in this regard.
In order to understand the concept “status congruence” it is again important to
focus attention on the fact that a variety of factors can contribute to status
differentiation in a group. External characteristics such as ethnicity, gender, age,
occupation, and internal factors such as participation, ability and popularity can for
example determine the status of a group member. Where a person is evaluated in the
same way with regard to all the relevant status determining factors and his/her rank
corresponds with all the characteristics, status congruence is achieved. People’s
status is congruent if they are evaluated and ranked on the same level with regard to
all the relevant factors.
Where a person is evaluated and ranked highly in terms of one status dimension
but receives a low evaluation and rank in terms of another relevant dimension, we talk
about the phenomenon of status incongruence. Status incongruence is therefore the

233
 234

differential placing of a person on various relevant status dimensions in a particular

social system – in this case the small group.
Lots of research has been done on macro- as well as macro-level in order to
determine the effect of status incongruence on individual as well as group behaviour.
Lenski (1954) for example analysed the effect of status incongruence of four status
dimensions on macro-level, namely income, occupation, education, race and
ethnicity, on individual behaviour. He found that persons with high status congruence
were more satisfied and less frustrated than people whose status was incongruent.
The latter showed a large measure of dissatisfaction as well as high levels of
frustration, as a result of which they attempted to change society. This demonstrates
that people have a tendency to exercise pressure to make their status congruent.
However, Sampson (in Ofshe, 1973: 220) mentions Kleiner’s finding that
incongruent status does not always lead to pressure for change, but can also lead to a
high incidence of mental illness. He states in this regard: "Both approaches,
however, suggest that incongruence is an undesirable state and that individuals will
attempt to cope with it in some manner".
Apart from this research on macro-level, research with regard to the effect of
status incongruence on the small group level has also been done. Adams (1953) for
example developed an index for the measurement of status congruence for air force
crewmembers on dimensions such as age, rank, amount of flight time, educational
status and length of service. They found that crews with high status congruence were
characterised by greater friendliness, mutual trust and greater intimacy than crews
with low status congruence. The latter experienced more dissatisfaction in general.
It is interesting to note in this regard that these negative consequences of status
incongruence did not emerge in Bales’s experimental work where people were not
evaluated equally high with regard to popularity and task abilities.7 In an attempt to
explain the discrepancy in the findings of Bales and other researchers Sampson (in
Ofshe, 1973: 220-221) expounds a very important insight with regard to the
experience of status congruence. He demonstrates that it is not the real or equal rank
of a person on various status dimensions that leads to dissatisfaction but that the
expected status congruence plays an important role here. If there is an expectation
that status congruence will occur, and this expectation is not satisfied, incongruence

7
See chapter 15 par 4 for a discussion of the experiment.

234
235

together with the accompanying negative effects will be experienced. In the Bales
experiment the most popular person and the task specialist did not expect to be
evaluated highly on both dimensions and they therefore did not experience status
incongruence.
In a later experiment Branden (in Ofshe, 1973) tested this influence of
expected status congruence. He manipulated three status dimensions, namely
personal status, occupational status and leadership status in such a way that he created
conditions of complete congruence, fully expected congruence, unexpected
congruence and total incongruence. He found that people in the full and the expected
congruence situations were significantly more positive than those in the incongruent
situation and to a lesser extent more than those in the unexpected congruent situation.
The people in the latter two situations (incongruent and unexpected congruent
situations) experienced significantly more tension than the people in the expected
congruent situation and on the whole experienced the group situation as more
unpleasant than those in the expected congruent situation.
In conclusion it appears as if status incongruence is undesirable in a group and
could impede the necessary co-ordination of interaction in a group. Sampson (1973:
231) summarises this view as follows:

"With incongruence, the world is unorganized and difficult to cope with; thus
both P and O seek to achieve and maintain a congruence of status postitions, i.e., a
congruence of expectations. Placing one's self and others into status positions is one
means of ordering the social environment to facilitate coordinated interaction.
Therefor, both intra personal and interpersonal effort is directed towards a congruence
of expectations, a condition which is found with a congruent status structure."

4. Further variables related to status

Apart from the factors, which contribute to status differentiation in the small group
and the influence of the status structure on the behaviour and participation of group
members there are two further variables that are strongly related to status. These
variables are conformity and authority, which will be discussed in this paragraph.

235
 236

Both these factors are in a relationship of mutual interchange with status.

Conformity and authority contribute on the one hand to the development of the status
structure, but on the other hand the status structure influences patterns of conformity
and authority.

4.1 Status and conformity

The relationship between status and conformity was demonstrated as early as 1950 by
Homans in his The Human Group. He highlighted the reversible relationship between
status and conformity clearly in the following two propositions, namely:

 "... the higher the rank of a person within a group, the more nearly his
activities conform to the norms of the group" (Homans, 1950: 141) and
 "... the closer an individual or a subgroup comes to realizing in all the
activities the norms of the group as a whole, the higher will be the social rank
of the individual or the subgroup" (Homans, 1950: 181).

Later research indicated however that this relationship is not as directly linear. The
experimental work of HH Kelley and MM Shapiro (1954) provided particularly
insightful findings with regard to this relationship.
These researchers brought students together within groups of 5-6 and allowed
them to introduce themselves and to converse. After the brief introduction everybody
had to indicate in a sociometric test how acceptable he or she would find other people
for co-operation. The subjects were then placed in compartments and were shown
pieces of paper with the sociometric counts that they had supposedly received from
the others. By quickly taking these papers back and pretending that the particular
people were not supposed to see the results, the researchers succeeded in creating the
belief amongst the subjects that they were either very popular amongst the others or
not popular at all. In the questionnaire, which they were given immediately
afterwards, people who believed that they were popular said they would like to
remain a member of the group, while the others wanted to stop being a member of the
group. Subsequently the subjects were told that they each had to do a task for which
they would receive a mark and that the marks of each group would be used to

236
237

determine a winning group, which would receive a money reward. The task consisted
of ten judgements about which card A or B had the most dots. The subjects were told
that in all ten cases the correct answer would be consistently either card A or card B.
In reality cards A and B had exactly the same number of dots in the first case and
afterwards the number of dots on cards B were increased continuously in the other
nine cases. It should have been clear to all the subjects as the judgements continued
that the correct answer was “Card B”. After each judgement each subject could let
each other subject no via a note what his/her decision was. These notes were
collected but not delivered and the subjects received notes, which were written by the
researcher. These notes indicated that the “other members” considered “Card A” to
be the right answer. Would a person give in to the “majority view” and agree that
“Card A” is the right answer and therefore endanger the group’s ultimate
achievement? A conformity index was calculated as an indicator for the extent to
which a subject submitted to group influence and this was correlated with real
sociometric scores as well as the member’s eagerness to remain a member of the
group.
The researchers found that the subjects who did not consider group membership
important and who were not eager to remain in the group, were less inclined to submit
to group influence and to conform to the opinion that “Card A” was the correct
answer.
With regard to the conformity of high status members the findings were not as
clear cut as with low status members. It was found that although some high status
members conformed to the norm, there were also a large number of high status
members who, like the low status members did not conform. They therefore
exhibited a bigger spread in the extent to which they conformed than was the case to
the low status members.
In order to better understand this variation in conformity amongst members who
consider group membership important and who are themselves highly ranked in the
group, Kelley did further experimental work together with J E Dittes (1956). This
experiment corresponded to in broad terms with that of Kelley and Shapiro (1954). A
discussion group was manipulated in such a way that the members developed a
definite idea about their own and other member’s status. Other than in the first
experiment, members were brought under the impression in this experiment that

237
 238

acceptance or evaluation by others were high, average, low or very low. They found
that members exhibited four levels of acceptance, which correlated with their
evaluation of their group membership. The higher the member’s perceived
acceptance, the higher his/her evaluation of group membership. The differences
between the members on the four levels of acceptance were statistically significant.
The researcher changed the group task by reversing the previous consensus
about decisions in the new task. This was done in order to determine under which
conditions of perceived acceptance by others and therefore established status, group
members with new task information would be prepared to change earlier group
decisions and therefore endanger consensus and conformity.
The findings in this experiment were that people, who were aware of their low
status, conformed badly, like in the previous experiment. However, people with a
very low acceptance this time showed more apparent conformity than any of the other
categories did. The researchers explained this as a result of anxiety amongst these
people that the group would reject them.
Where people with high acceptance were in this experiment separated from those
with average acceptance, the variation in conformity in the first experiment by people
with high acceptance could be explained. It became evident that people with really
high acceptance are actually more non-conforming – they differed more often from
the group decisions – while people with only average acceptance showed more
consistent conformity. The latter also submitted faster to the majority opinion, talked
a lot, but seldom had the courage to reject the new task information against the
majority. Dittes and Kelley explained the higher conformity of people with average
acceptance as a result of the realisation that they already had considerable status, but
that this could be increased. Their conformity proved their aspirations for greater
acceptance and esteem. The persons who were made to believe that they already
enjoyed high acceptance and esteem, were freed of such aspirations and could rely on
a high status to go against the group if they believed that the latter was wrong.
A third experiment, which follows closely on the previous experiments, is that of
O J Bartos (reported by Homans, 1961: 347-349). Bartos worked with members of
YMCA clubs, who were divided into four status ranks by the organisation itself. In
the first experiment the subjects had to make simple decisions about the length of
lines on sets of cards. During his decisions the subject was made to believe by means

238
239

of a tape recording that other group members were discussing the same problem aloud
and were making a decision that was the wrong judgement. Against their own
conviction, the subjects followed the wrong suggestions of the “other members” and
made a much larger number of mistakes than when they afterwards (unknowingly)
judged the same cards without the simulated presence and judgements of other
members. Bartos used the number of mistakes made by a subject during the
simulated group situation as an indication of conformity. In a second experiment the
subjects had to judge certain statements, which were in reality part of a scale that
measured independence of judgement. In a third experiment the originality of
subjects was tested by letting them choose between certain drawings, which had
proved to give a valid indication of originality in a previous experiment.
Bartos found that members with the highest status conformed significantly less
than members with lower status did. Members in the second status rank on the other
hand showed the most conformity. The highest status category also showed the
greatest independence of judgement, while the ordinary followers as the category with
the lowest status showed the least independence in their judgement. In the test for
originality the leaders – the persons with the highest status – also fared the best, while
the two categories with the lowest status showed the least originality.
On the basis of these three experiments Homans adapted his original view about
the direct linear relationship between status and conformity. He generalises about the
relationship between status and conformity as indicated in the three discussed
experiments as follows:

"The members of middle status in a group, whether they are so actually or

only believe themselves to be so, seem most disposed to give in to influence coming
apparently from a large number of other members or to cleave to an opinion that other
members have once accepted. Less prone to conformity are members of either upper
or lower status."

In his work Social Behavior - Its Elementary Forms Homans provides us with a very
acceptable explanation for this particular correspondence between status and
conformity. He notes for example with regard to a person in the lowest status
category, that where a group prevents a person from achieving respect and status, the
group loses control over this person. By not giving this person respect, s/he is
deterred from receiving an important reward and the group is unable to punish the

239
 240

person further in the case of a transgression by withholding this reward. Homans

(1961: 230) says in this regard: "Faced with a choice between doing what the group
wanted and doing what would at least satisfy his own selfrespect ... the man of low
status was apt to choose the latter. Since the group could not hurt him any further, he
had nothing to loose by not conforming."
Conformity and a contribution to the group task also do not contribute much to
an increase in the low status person’s status, as other group members, as has already
been shown, are inclined to underestimate his/her achievement. Homans (1961: 354)
states it as follows:
"One of the difficulties a man encounters with rising in a world once his
companions have safely consigned him to a low status is that no matter how good,
how valuable, his activities later become, they will deny him the credit for them."
With regard to the people with medium status, Homans (1961) indicates that they
can gain advantage by conforming because their status can be increased, while they
can lose a lot by not conforming, because they can lose status in this case. It is
therefore more risky for the medium status member to deviate than to conform and
they have a tendency to conform. Their conformity also demonstrates their
aspirations for greater acceptance and esteem.
According to Homans (1961) it is the least risky for the people in the high status
group, sometimes to deviate from the majority judgement. If these people deviate
from the majority judgement and they are proved to be right, their deviance confirms
their superiority. If they deviate from the majority judgement and they are proved to
be wrong, they may lose some status but because of their high status they can afford
it. These high status members who conform less are also often potential innovators.
People who initiate innovations in a group are often looked up to as leaders, which
means that established high status facilitates leadership in this particular way.
Homans (1961: 359) remarks the following in this regard: "... leaders must take
risks...But if the risks of innovation are there to be taken, upper-status people are
better able to take them than others, for they have less than the others to gain by doing
the same old thing and less to loose by trying something different."

4.2 Status and authority

240
241

An analysis of the relationship between status and authority shows that there is a very
close interrelationship between these two variables and that researchers do not always
maintain the distinction between the two very well. Some of the researchers for
example define status in terms of the authority that a person can exercise. Ridgeway
(1983: 160), for example, defines status as follows: "A member's status in a group
refers to the degree of deference, esteem, and power to influence others that he or she
acquires."
Klein (1956) also shows that there is a particularly close relationship between a
person’s status and his/her authority. She demonstrates that when the group task is
difficult and a particular skill or ability is asked for, a particular member could come
to the fore and make this contribution and lead the group for the duration. – This
implies the exercise of power. The authority of a person is therefore dependent upon
the group’s needs for the particular functions or contributions that the particular
member can best perform or fulfil. Klein shows, however, that there is a tendency
amongst small groups to quickly sever authority from particular skills. They not only
transfer it to situations where the particular problem appears but also to situations
with other problems. Through this differential statuses with differential authority is
created. She shows further that the development of such statuses takes place through
the simultaneous functioning of different variables.
These different variables and their mutual interrelationships, which could
simultaneously lead to status and eventually to authority within groups, are
summarised very well by Hopkins (1964: 99) in his work The Exercise of Influence in
Small Groups. He indicates for example that the interrelationships between the four
structural variables of rank, visibility, centrality and conformity eventually lead to
influence and leadership and he says in this regard:

"If one takes the several propositions collectively, the simplest general
derivation is that the five properties imply one another and tend to be associated at
any given time. Those in a group who are the highest-ranking are likely as well to be
the most central and the most conforming, to have the highest visibility and to
exercise the most influence. Such a conjunction of structural characteristics would
seem fit what is sometimes meant by 'leadership'...".

According to Hopkins (1964: 158) this conjunction of status and influence is the basis
for the legitimisation of influence and he says in this regard: "... the conjunction of

241
249

need to concentrate only on being successful in leading their groups to the

achievement of group goals (Palazzolo, 1981: 215-216).
The study of the development of group leaders in informal groups exposes the
dynamic nature of the group process through which leadership develops. It is
therefore of more importance within group dynamics and only the factors, which play
a role here, will be discussed.
The factors, which contribute to the development of a leadership structure are
mainly related to the group situation and refer to those conditions within the group
situation, which necessitate the establishment of a leadership position.

3.1 The group situation

There are four factors, which are related to the group situation, namely the
organisational complexity of the group, the structural position of a person within the
group, the involvement of group members with group goals and whether the group
finds itself in one or the other crisis situation.

 The organisational complexity of the group: With regard to organisational

complexity of the group, two factors are important, namely the group tasks and
the size of the group.

The complexity of the tasks of activities in which the group is involved, play an
important role in the appointment of group leaders. The more complex the activities,
the greater the likelihood that group members will prefer a structured decision-
making structure to organise the execution of the task (Ridgeway, 1983: 215).
Organisational complexity is also related to group size. The larger the group,
the more difficult the co-ordination of everyone’s activities without a clear structure
of leadership. Furthermore an increase in group size makes more demands of the
leadership role and there is more tolerance for the leader giving direction to group
activities (Ridgeway, 1983: 216; Shaw, 1981: 170-171).

 The structural position of people in the group: It is interesting to note that the
physical placing of a person is related to leadership. The person, who is seated

249
 250

at the head of a table, is usually seen as the leader. Furthermore there is a

strong possibility that the person who is in a central position in a
communication network will assume the leadership role. If all people in a
network are nearly equally central, as is the case in the circle for example, no
leader will probably develop (Shaw, 1981: 148-153).

 The commitment of group members to group goals: The more committed group
members are to group goals, the greater the probability that they would assign a
leadership position to those who could facilitate the achievement of the group
goal. The commitment of members to group goals is usually related to the
attractiveness of the goal (Crosbie, 1975: 219).

 The presence of a crisis: Crises or tension from the outside environment or

within the group itself encourages the development of a leadership structure.
Interpersonal conflicts are examples. When a group is confronted with a crisis
requiring relatively rapid resolution, the tendency will be to opt for quick and
effective decision making, which will encourage the development of a
leadership structure (Ridgeway, 1983: 215).

Apart from the factors in the group situation, which necessitate the appointment of a
group leader, it is also important to note the factors, which determine which person or
persons would be appointed as leader.

3.2 Individual characteristics

A variety of individual characteristics influence the choice of a leader. The important

factors in this regard are generalised leadership, the individual’s status in the external
environment and personality traits.

 Status in the external group environment: Research indicated that an

individual’s status in the external group environment plays an important role in
the amount of influence exercised by group members and the extent to which
group members are chosen as leaders. This explains why status factors such as

250
251

occupational status and gender can influence the development of leadership

although they are not related to the group activity (Verba, 1961: 129).

 Personality traits: Early attempts to understand leadership in small groups

concentrated on the personality characteristics of those in leadership positions.
This approach to leadership is known as the personality trait approach.

Proponents of the personality traits approach are inclined to list characteristics

that distinguish leaders from followers. They argue, for instance, that leaders are
more likely than the rest of the group to have these qualities (Shaw 1981: 325):

(1) Those abilities essential for achieving the group goal, such as insight,
intelligence and the ability to get things done
(2) Those social skills that let the group run smoothly, such as popularity,
sociability and helpfulness
(3) Those factors related to the individual’s motivation to gain acknowledgement
or prominence, such as initiative, self-confidence and perseverance.

The personality trait approach emphasises certain individual characteristics, which

distinguish leaders from their followers. In this regard the following are important:

 Leaders generally tend to be taller, older, bigger, healthier, neater, more

intelligent, with more self-confidence, better adapted, more extrovert and
dominant and more empathetic than their followers. Problems with the
research methodology resulted in inconsistent results, however, and discredited
this approach (Crosbie, 1975: 222; Forsyth, 1983: 211-212).
 People with personality traits such as integrity, responsibility and independence
are more likely to become leaders than those without these personality traits
(Shaw, 1981: 207).
 Leaders are usually sensitive to the demands and needs of the group and group
members. They possess the ability to lead the group to the achievement of
these goals but are also flexible enough to adapt their behaviour to variations in
these demands and needs (McDavid and Harari, 1968: 361).

251
 252

 Those who are actively involved in group activities and who talk a lot during
group discussions are often appointed as leaders. Quantity is apparently more
important than quality. Forsyth (1983: 212-213) explains this phenomenon
with reference to the high premium that group members place on motivation,
commitment and eagerness to work for the group and the fact that they see
active participation as reflecting these characteristics.
 Group members, who achieve success, stand a better chance of being elected as
leaders. This is related to the extent to which these people possess abilities and
skills, which the group members consider important and which improve the
group’s chances of achieving its goal (Forsyth, 1983: 212; Palazzolo, 1981:
216).
 A person who is motivated to play a leadership role will have a bigger chance
of being chosen as a leader. This motivation can either be a result of the
satisfaction of individual needs by playing the leadership role or of the
expectation that success will be achieved with these leadership activities
(Verba, 1961: 130-131).

Ridgeway (1983: 209-213) believes that this approach has not proved very rewarding,
because the sorts of qualities that distinguish leaders from followers depend on the
needs and demands of the particular group. In this regard Forsyth (1983: 212-213)
points out that, although research has demonstrated that the person who talks most in
the group is the most likely to emerge as leader, what is decisive are rather members’
assumptions about leadership. If members believe that active participation is a good
indication of leadership ability, it is very likely that the person who talks the most will
emerge as a leader. If, however, leadership is associated with aggressiveness and
shrewdness, the subtle manipulator of others will probably emerge as a leader.

Although the personality trait approach is not the best way to study leadership,
it has indicated that leadership should be analysed in terms of the needs and demands
of particular types of group and their members, and of the function fulfilled by leaders
for the group in this regard. Joubert and Steyn (1965: 242) emphasise this
contribution to the personality traits approach when they say: "Even from these few
examples it should however be clear that leadership and the role of personality traits
in it can be better understood if attention is paid to the leader, the followers, the social

252
253

structure of the group and the particular situation within which leaders and followers
act simultaneously. The study of personality traits relevant to leadership itself
emphasises the necessity of viewing and studying leadership as a group
phenomenon."

 Generalised leadership: Generalised leadership refers to the phenomenon that

leadership can be transferred from one situation to another to a certain extent.
This happens when group members generalise a person’s ability to execute a
particular task or activity successfully and accept that the person could give
direction in other similar situations (Verba, 1961: 125-128).

When a leadership structure has developed within a group it means that certain
persons fulfil leadership functions within the group and play leadership roles within
the group. The relationship between leadership functions and role differentiation
must be discussed in more depth.

4. Leadership functions and role differentiation

As we indicated in the previous section leadership is often seen as the execution of

activities related to group functioning and these activities are often referred to as
leadership functions. Leadership functions entail the activities involved in the
maintenance of the group by inter alia achieving group goals, ensuring the continued
existence of the group, the establishment of satisfactory interpersonal relationships in
the group, the provision of resources and the advancement of group cohesion
(Cartwright and Zander, 1968: 304).
The different leadership functions can be divided into two categories, namely
the achievement of a group goal (task-oriented leadership function) and the
maintenance and enhancement of the group (socio-emotional leadership function).
The task-oriented leadership function is related to the achievement of group goals,
thus the execution of the task of the group and deals with the group’s relationship
with its external environment. In contrast the socio-emotional group function is
related to interpersonal relationships within the group. Any given activity within a
group can contribute to goal achievement as well as the management of interpersonal

253
 254

relationships or it can promote the one at the expense of the other (Cartwright and
Zander, 1968: 306-307).
According to Verba (1961: 144-160) the most effective leadership structure is
the one where the leadership role encompasses both leadership functions. However, it
is difficult for one person to comply with the conflicting expectations related to the
execution of these two leadership functions. Verba (1961: 154-155) puts it as
follows: "On the one hand, leaders are expected to be formal, avoidant, task-oriented
instrumental leaders. On the other, they are expected to be more affectively oriented,
indulgent, informal, and companionable group members." Orders by the leader aimed
at the achievement of group goals often elicit negative affective reactions, which
reduce the leader’s motivation to act instrumentally and can impede the group’s
execution of the task.
One of the ways in which these conflicting expectations of the leadership role
can be managed is through role differentiation. Slater (1965) and at a later stage
Bales and Slater (1969:255-276) did very informative research in this regard. During
this experimental research they analysed the process of role and status differentiation
in the small group and indicated how two types of leadership roles, namely the
instrumental and the expressive leadership roles differentiate. During these
experiments the relationship between status and leadership as was indicated during
the concluding paragraph of the previous chapter, was illustrated very well. This
experimental work and its contribution, is considered to be very important and the
work is therefore discussed in more depth.
In this experimental research with regard to role- and status differentiation and
status consensus, they attempted to answer the following five questions:

 To what extent do group members evaluate each other differently and to what
extent do they tend to evaluate co-members similarly?
 What influence does repeated interaction over time have on the initial
evaluations?
 How does the behaviour of members who were evaluated differently differ?
 How do these differentially evaluated members act towards each other?
 What is the relationship between role differentiation and personality factors?

254
255

Slater defines a role as a relatively coherent system of items of interpersonal

behaviour. The items of interpersonal behaviour in terms of which members could
develop differentiated roles were the following activities in the particular experiment:

 Talking
 Receiving interaction from others
 Giving ideas
 Giving direction and
 Receiving affection or popularity.

For the measurement of status consensus Bales and Slater used a formula developed
by Kendall called the coefficient of concordance or in short W. This measurement of
status consensus is based on group members’ agreement about who had the best ideas
and who gave the most direction in the group. This measurement makes it possible to
distinguish between groups with a high and a low status consensus.
The experiment was done with twenty groups of three to seven male members
who met for four sessions. Eighty sessions in total were analysed. The groups had to
discuss and solve set administrative problems. The interaction process was observed
from behind one-way mirrors with the help of Bales’s category system. Bales’s
categorising of interaction made it possible to rank people according to who talked
the most and who received the most interactions.
Apart from this, members had to answer the following questions in writing at
the end of each session:

 Who (including yourself) contributed the best ideas for the solution of the
problem?
 Who (including yourself) best took the lead in the discussion and helped it to
keep going effectively (in order of importance)?
 Who did you like most in the discussion (in order of importance)?
 At the end of the fourth session a further question was asked, namely: Who
(including yourself) stood out clearly as group leader during the previous four
sessions?

255
 256

The answers to the question put to the participants at the end of the sessions made it
possible to rank members according to idea contributions, leadership contributions
and popularity.
An analysis of all the data collected in this way gave the following results:

(a) Tendencies to specialise was established by counting the number of times that
a person achieved the top position on one of the interpersonal behavioural item in
terms of the ranking based on the Bales system as well as the answers to the questions
at the end of the sessions. A top position with regard to only behavioural item
appeared mostly with regard to popularity, which leads to the conclusion that
popularity is a relatively specialised achievement. Both in high and low status
consensus groups popularity was least associated with other characteristics.
With regard to the four other characteristics it was found that talking and
receipt of interaction was highly associated with each other and that giving ideas and
direction as highly associated.
There was an important difference between groups with a high status
consensus and those with a low status consensus with regard to differentiation on the
basis of these four characteristics.
In high status consensus group talking and receipt of interaction were highly
associated with giving ideas and direction. A role therefore differentiates that is
characterised by high participation as well as task ability. Viewed globally two roles
to which status is attached are found namely:

 The task specialist and

 The most popular person

In low status consensus group however there is no strong relationship between talking
and receipt of interaction on the one hand and giving of ideas and direction on the
other hand. Viewed globally there are three roles, namely:

 The most popular person who is not evaluated highly on participation or

direction:

256
257

 An active participant who is not highly regarded with regard to task abilities or
popularity. This is Bales’s (1966) overactive deviant;
 A passive task specialist who is unpopular, but also not active and not highly
regarded with regard to task abilities.

(b) For an answer to the question whether members really displayed the behaviour,
which members ascribed to them in their evaluations and which members reacted the
most to each other, Slater compared the persons with the best ideas to those who were
the most popular. These analyses showed that the way in which members
distinguished qualitatively between each other in their judgements corresponded with
their real behaviour as established through Bales’s category system.

(c) With regard to the differentiation between their co-members there is a tendency
for the best idea-persons to be the most outspoken about which members they liked or
did not like. The most popular person, in contrast, tended not to differentiate between
the other group members. Differences were again found between the groups with
high status consensus and those with low status consensus. Within the high status
consensus groups people with low status were especially reluctant to differentiate
between others with regard to affection. Within group with low status consensus it
was mostly the people with high status who were not prepared to differentiate
between other people.

(d) The most important type of role differentiation, which takes place in experimental
groups according to Slater, is that between task and socio-emotional functions or
activities.

(e) The top positions with regard to the five interpersonal characteristics correlated as
follows with the answers to the question about the group members who stood out
clearly as leaders:

 Giving direction 80%

 Receiving interaction 65%
 Giving ideas 59%

257
 258

 Talking 55% and

 Popularity 25%

This implies that a person seen to be the one who gave the most direction was also
more often considered to be the leader than a person who did not give direction. The
most popular person had a very small chance of developing as a leader.

(f) With regard to leadership as such, the following findings can be highlighted from
this research:

 Members of the group associate the person with the best ideas and the person
who provides the best guidance most closely with leadership, and in all cases
the leader was either the person with the best ideas or the person who provided
the best guidance.
 Members of the group associate the person with the best ideas and the person
who provides the best guidance most closely with leadership, and in all cases
the leader was either the person with the best ideas or the person who provided
the best guidance. There is a tendency for the person with the best ideas to
concentrate on activities related to the task.
 The most popular person concentrates on positive as well as negative socio-
emotional activities. This person is usually not seen as the leader, except if the
person who gives the best direction and who has the best ideas is very
unpopular, and the most popular person can also execute the task activities
effectively. Bales and Slater (1969:274-275) explain this phenomenon as
follows:

"Leadership and perhaps guidance are attributed to that member, one of the pair
or occasionally a third person, who best symbolizes the weighted combination
and integration of the two more specialized functions. The two directions of
specialization, though complementary and supporting in the long run, in the
short run tend in some degree to conflict with each other in a way that makes it
difficult for the same man to be top specialist on both. In the present sample,
the stronger probability is that leadership will be attributed to the task
specialist, although the concept of weighted factors implies that if the task
specialist is too low in likeability, or if the social-emotional specialist is very
high on task ability leadership may be attributed to the social-emotional

258
259

specialist. The data suggest that guidance and leadership tend to be attributed
to the person who accomplishes or symbolizes a higher order integration of the
two more specialized task and social-emotional functions."

 The most popular person fulfilled the most specialised role in the group, in the
sense that the person who fulfils this role is the least likely to fulfil other roles.
The most popular person can also perform other tasks at the beginning of the
group meetings. As the group and the task develop this person can lose in
popularity if s/he concentrates too much on the task. Such a person then
becomes the task leader.

 The person with the best ideas, who is constantly striving to get the task
accomplished and thus move towards the instrumental goal of the group,
continually disturbs group equilibrium, creates tension and attracts the hostility
of the group, making any choice as best-liked person impossible. This person’s
value for the group prevents total rejection, however. Bales and Slater’s
experiments indicate that anyone who is both best-liked and the one with the
best ideas at the first meeting, will always drop the second role and concentrate
on the first - both cannot be kept up.

 The data also indicate that the relationship between the two “specialists” as a
whole is the most positive in the group and that, of all the members, it is the
best-liked person who provides most positive support for the person with the
best ideas.

The general outline is thus one of specialisation and complementing where the person
with the best ideas concentrates on the execution of the task and plays the more
aggressive role and the best-liked person concentrates on socio-emotional problems
and on providing support and plays a more passive role.

With regard to complementing each other Slater indicates that especially in

the high status consensus group these two “specialists” tend to be more in interaction
with each other than with other members of the group. The most popular person
tends to give a higher rating to the idea person with regard to affection than to the
other group members and this rank is also on average higher than the rank that the

259
 260

idea person gets from other members. The best idea person also gives the highest
rank with regard to affection to the most popular person and this is also higher on
average than the rank the latter receives from other group members or that the best
idea person gives to other group members on average.
In conclusion it can be said that there are two chief types of group action,
mainly task-oriented and mainly socio-emotionally oriented, and the fundamental
type of role differentiation lies in the division of task and socio-emotional functions.
We call the person specialising in task functions the instrumental leader and the
person specialising in socio-emotional functions the expressive leader.

The ideal small-group leader would be the individual skilled enough to handle
both problems and, by so doing, maximise his/her own status in all the group
dimensions. Slater (1955: 512) says in this regard:
"He would be able to make both an active, striving response to the task and a
sympathetic response to individual needs of group members. He would be a
high participator, well liked, rated high on task ability, and eventually chosen
leader...Such individuals are rare...
"There are at least two kinds of reasons for that rarity of such men. First there
are sociological factors, revolving around the non-compatibility of the task
and social-emotional roles. Adaptation to pressures from outside the group,
such as are created by a task which must be performed, involve, by definition,
change. The individual who presses toward the solution of a task
inadvertently forces those around him to make continual minor adjustmensts
in their behavior, and to continually re-examine their ideas and values in the
light of these external demands. The individual who concerns himself with
internal social-emotional problems, on the other hand, is supportive in his
responses to the ideas and behavior of those around him, and continually
reaffirms their dominant values...
"The second set of reasons may be called psychological. These have to do
with the individual's predisposition to assume a particular role."

Bales and Slater’s research was only done amongst experimental groups. Verba
(1961: 165-184) questions the validity of generalisations made from their results to
real groups, as there are certain important differences between Bales and Slater’s
experimental groups and normal real groups. As experimental groups are initially
leaderless, only exists for a short time and consist of university students who are
relatively similar, it could be expected that any attempt to exercise instrumental
leadership would be seen as arbitrary and a direct personal challenge. This is
normally not the case with real groups where the leader’s exercise of power is

260
261

generally seen as legitimate. According to Verba real groups would rather be inclined
to solve the conflicting expectations linked to leadership by developing a legitimate
leadership structure where the control exercised would be impersonal in nature. In
cases where the group is confronted with a crisis and a new leader takes over who
cannot rely on the support of group norms, it can happen that the leadership role
would differentiate in an instrumental and an expressive role.
In real groups the solution to the conflict inherent to the leadership role is
strongly related to group norms. The legitimisation of the group leader’s control
through a set of group norms implies the expectation that the group leader as well as
the other group members would conform to these norms. In this context the question
can be asked to what extent and under what circumstances the leader would conform
to group norms.

5. Leadership and conformity to group norms

It was already indicated that conformity gives rise to status and consequently to
leadership as the leader is usually the person with the highest status in the group.
According to Verba (1961: 186) status and conformity influence each other mutually.
This means that high conformity also means high status, while high status implies
high conformity. Verba puts it as follows: "The relationship between rank and
conformity is mutual - the higher one's rank, the closer one conforms to the norms;
the closer one conforms to the group norms, the higher one's rank. The group's
demand for conformity to its norms and the special need of the leader for acceptance
by the group combine to place stronger demands for conformity upon the leader than
upon any other group member." It is therefore clear that group members experience
pressure to conform to group norms.

5.1 Pressure to conformity on leaders

In answer to the question why the leader experiences pressure to conform, it should
be noted that the leader experiences the same pressure that the normal group members
are exposed to. This pressure is accompanied by negative reactions in the case of
deviance, which reduces the leader’s influence. Leaders also experience pressure to

261