Authoritarian, Democratic, Laissez-faire: Lewin's leadership styles are not what they appear to be

Two of the "styles" have nothing to do with leadership, or even decency

In the late 1930s, social psychologist Kurt Lewin attempted something unprecedented: Together with co-researchers Ronald Lippitt and Ralph K. White, he set out to identify categorizations of leadership. Through their work, Lewin and his associates were able to distinguish three “leadership styles” that were present in organizations of the time: different ways in which leadership expressed itself in the real world. He coined those styles Authoritarian, Democratic and Laissez-faire. In so doing, Lewin and his colleagues unwittingly launched the “leadership industry” as we know it today. A plethora of leadership concepts, trainings, programs, tools and thought leaders sprung off Lewin’s categorization. But Lewin’s three-category concept also took on a life of its own.

Lewin’s distinction of leadership styles morphed into something different than what Lewin had intended. In the decades after Lewin’s death, in 1947, the authors of management textbooks came up with their own interpretation of the word styles. Instead of taking it as systemic and observational, as Lewin had meant it, they started to describe the three styles as personal and prescriptive. With lasting consequences.

I estimate that 100% of business schools teachers preach that Lewin’s leadership styles are to be understood as situational. In fact, the word situational has become a moniker in the field of leadership styles. Meaning: A particular situation between a leader and a follower will require or justify one, or several of the three leadership styles. You are facing a problem with a difficult employee? Than the authoritarian style might be in order. You have a terrific employee on your team who doesn’t need to be told what to do this week? Then some laissez-faire may be appropriate.

And that is not at all what Lewin meant.

According to Lewin, leadership should be the opposite of situational

In his research, Lewin wasn’t exploring three different, but legitimate options for being a good, or decent leader. Instead, his distinction was a condemnation of much of the leadership reality that he and his co-researchers had encountered in organizations during the 1930s. Lewin, an ardent democrat and a progressive, politically-minded scientist, wanted to highlight that too many organizations allowed for authoritarian and anarchic patterns to take hold, instead of them displaying consistently democratic ways internal their interactions between managers and employees.

Sure: In Lewin’s time, non-collaborative and non-democratic behavior patterns and ways of organizing were deemed acceptable by many. It was the 1930s, remember? But Lewin’s standards were much, much higher: He did not think that everything was okay in organizational leadership. Instead, he intended to challenge his contemporaries’ thinking: Be aware of the dangers of deviating from truly democratic forms of organizing! We have to stay clear from authoritarian, or laissez-faire patterns, processes and systems – or it will lead us to doom! According to Lewin’s concept, there weren’t three leadership styles that deserved to be acted upon. There was just one acceptable leadership style – while the two other were abominations mistaken for leadership.

Sadly, not much changed in that regard, during the eight decades that followed.

Lewin wanted to help us make organizational
leadership unwaveringly democratic.

Leadership, in short, was not and is not supposed to be “situational.” It is supposed to be consistently democratic. Adamantly democratic. Stubbornly democratic. Lewin’s recommendation would have been more like: If you ever feel like stepping into the realms of authoritarianism or laissez-faire, take a breath and contemplate about what is going on. It is likely that the system you are part of needs fixing!

Authoritarianism and Laissez-faire: They are dark places

Lewin wanted us to put an end to authoritarianism and paternalism – in organizations and beyond. Some of our societies have indeed overcome authoritarianism, but most organizations have not. In the workplace, command-and-control is still widely tolerated, and even deemed acceptable or unavoidable – supposedly in Lewin’s name. That is a mistake. Autocracy and patriarchy – they do not bode businesses well in the 21st century: People are not children.

So what about the Laissez-faire style of leadership, you might wonder? Laissez-faire wasn’t uncommon in the 1930s, and it is still rather common in companies today. But it is often cleverly disguised. Take faddish forms of target-setting, for example: They assume that with the right indicators and key objectives for groups or people, you can basically leave performance, value creation and innovation to itself. Think about interventions that assume that you just have to do a seminar, a workshop, a town hall meeting or an employee survey, and everyone will be on track. A great deal of managers and CEOs believes that tools and a few events can substitute involvement, showing up and engaging in discourse with employees and teams. They are wrong. Many of today’s tools and rituals amount to no more than dabbling, or laissez-faire. It may well be that many executives and managers are not identify their systems and interactions as being based on laissez-faire patterns. Sometimes the tools and HR processes that authoritarian and laissez-faire systems deploy may seem indistinguishable at first. But the interactions will be rather different.

It is important to understand that Laissez-faire, or non-interference, is not “the opposite of authoritarianism.” It is an entirely different evil. Laissez-faire is an even greater evil than authoritarianism, if you think about it. It amounts to abandonment and systematic distancing. It provokes organizational anarchy – especially in times of much home-office work and geographically dispersed workplace organizations. In Laissez-faire systems, most teams will suffer from a lack of social density. Consequence will be mostly absent. And it is likely that engagement and accountability of individuals and teams alike will erode, over time. Be aware that Laissez-faire is often hidden behind lip-service to self-management and participation or fads like mindfulness.

Now it is time to put autocratic and laissez-faire
systems, tools and attitudes on the garbage heap of history.

Lewin told us how. Now it’s for us to act upon it

Lewin taught us to let humanism and consequence reign, and to end hypocrisy at work. He gave us the necessary distinction to do so, more than 80 years ago. Since then, our societies have become far more democratic, while complex. globally competitive markets has forced command-and-control management onto its knees. Now is the time to actually put autocratic and laissez-faire attitudes on the garbage heap of history.

We are 80+ years late already.

---

A different version of this text was published in the book Essays on Beta, Vol. 1 by Niels Pflaeging