Kurt Lewin’s Boys’ Clubs and the Team Principle of Leadership
In the late 1930s, schoolboys in Iowa make theater masks after school. The task and the materials stay the same; only the style of leadership changes – and with it, the group’s behavior. The old experiment shows, with some caveats, that given equal talent, leadership makes the difference when it ensures that what the team needs right now actually happens.
Two identical groups: the one on the left stays disorganized. In the one on the right, a golden dot is always wherever something is missing at that moment – and the group reaches the goal.
Team principle #20
Team Principle of Leadership: Given equal talent, leadership makes the difference – it ensures that what the team needs right now actually happens.
4 min read4 sectionsSituationConnection to the principle
Contents
Five schoolchildren sit at a table making theater masks. Behind a low burlap screen, observers record what happens, minute by minute. A hidden camera is running. The man behind the experiment is Kurt Lewin. He emigrated from Berlin to the United States in 1933 and now does research at the Iowa Child Welfare Research Station of the State University of Iowa. His question fits the Team Principle of Leadership exactly: given equal talent, leadership makes the difference – it ensures that what the team needs right now actually happens. What changes in a group when only the leadership changes?
Three tables with five dots each: on the left one gives orders from above, on the right there is none, and in the middle gold stands in the circle – as in Lewin’s boys’ clubs.
01
After-School Clubs
Situation
In the late 1930s, Kurt Lewin, together with Ronald Lippitt and Ralph K. White, studies how leadership styles affect groups. The subjects are schoolchildren aged ten to eleven – boys, according to one account. They meet after school in hobby clubs of five, making masks and playing games. An adult leads each club. Observers record behavior minute by minute.
Connection to the team principle
The setup comes fairly close to the “equal talent” thought experiment. The children, the task and the materials stay the same. As far as the accounts reveal, one thing above all is varied: how the group is led. This makes it possible to observe something that is otherwise hard to isolate – leadership’s share in what happens.
02
Two Ways to Lead, Later a Third
Situation
In the authoritarian condition, the leader determines every step. He assigns tasks and partners and gives personal praise or criticism. In the democratic condition, the group decides on tasks and approach. The children choose their own partners, and the leader stays objective. A third condition is added later, laissez-faire: the leader does not intervene.
Connection to the team principle
The three conditions do not differ in whether a leader is present. They differ in what the leader does. That is precisely the point of the second half of the core statement. Leadership is not a box on the org chart. It is something you do – or fail to do.
03
What the Observers Saw
Situation
Under authoritarian leadership there is considerably more hostility, aggression and tension. The group looks for scapegoats. Some children become passive and obedient, others domineering toward the rest. Under democratic leadership there is more friendliness and a moderate level of aggression. When a club switches from one “climate” to another, behavior changes abruptly and markedly. The researchers summarize their findings in a film. The paper appears in 1939 in the Journal of Social Psychology.
Connection to the team principle
The group’s behavior shifts with the leadership. The scapegoating is the most instructive finding. A group that only receives orders turns its tension against its own members. So it is not just any leadership that helps. What helps is leadership that gives the group what it needs – here: participation, choice and objective feedback.
04
What the Experiment Does Not Show
Situation
The study has clear limits. The groups were small. The setup is regarded as improvised and relied on simple deceptions. The experiment had a political framing: on the eve of war, the children’s clubs stood for democracy and dictatorship. One critical account notes that the laissez-faire groups were in fact quite active and content, and that the researchers played this down. The study is not a modern, replicated finding.
Connection to the team principle
On its own, the experiment carries little weight. But it does not stand alone. A 2006 meta-analysis by C. Shawn Burke and colleagues found moderate relationships between leadership behavior and team outcomes: task-focused leadership was related to perceived team effectiveness (r = 0.33), and so was person-focused leadership (r = 0.36). These are correlations, not proof of causation. And they are moderate: leadership explains part of the differences between teams, not all of them.
Key takeaways
Key Lessons
01
Pay attention to the climate in your team. It is partly a response to the way you lead.
02
If your team is looking for scapegoats, examine your leadership first: How much do you decide alone, and how much say does the team have?
03
Let the team share in decisions about approach and collaboration wherever possible. Keep your feedback objective.
04
Don’t mistake holding back for leadership. Not intervening is a decision too – check whether it fits what your team needs right now.
05
Don’t overestimate yourself. Leadership makes a difference, but it is not the only factor.
Summary
In the late 1930s, Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lippitt and Ralph K. White had children’s clubs led in different ways. The task and materials stayed the same; the behavior did not. Under authoritarian leadership, hostility and scapegoating increased; under democratic leadership, a friendlier atmosphere prevailed. The study is old, small and politically charged. Even so, it illustrates what more recent meta-analyses support with more cautious numbers: leadership makes a difference when it ensures that what the team needs right now actually happens.
