Leadership And The Art of Leadership

Behavioral Leadership Theories

Behavioral Leadership Theories

Behavioral theories of leadership emerged as researchers started to focus less on the personal characteristics of effective leaders and more on the way in which such leaders went about doing their work. This shift of focus coincided with the eminent rise of behavioral psychology, which dominated US thinking from the 1920s1960s.

The 2 Factor Model

Early behavioral theories explored two ways of leading:

A concern for results A concern for people

although different researchers refer to these two aspects by different names. Results-focused leadership is concerned with delivering results primarily through strong hierarchal control and standardized operating procedures. By contrast, people-focused leadership is concerned with drawing the best out of staff through meeting their inner needs, such as the desire to feel important and accepted by others. Just as trait theorists had sought to identify a single 'right' type of person to lead well, behavioral theorists sought to identify a single, 'right' way to lead.

University of Iowa Studies

One of the first formal explorations of these two styles was conducted by Kurt Lewin and his colleagues at the University of Iowa, in the 1930s - a time when trait theory still dominated most researchers' attention. Lewin used the terms Autocratic - where staff were simply did as they were told. Democratic - where staff had some say over what happened in their workplace. As well as a third term laissez faire, which was basically the absence of any management involvement, and staff were left to decide everything themselves.

Although the researchers concluded that the democratic style was better, the results of later studies were mixed.

University of Michigan Studies

Behavioral leadership theories really came to the for in 1940s and 1950s, when two separate groups of researchers from the University of Michigan, and Ohio State University began to systematically look at the behaviors exhibited by effective leaders. The work conducted by the University of Michigan, under the supervision of Rensis Likert, referred to a manager's leadership style as being either: Production orientated - with a lets just get the job done and done well attitude.

Employee orientated - taking a personal interest in the their staff and actively seeking to nurture strong comerarderie.

University of Michigan Studies

The conclusion of the original researchers was that employee orientated leaders achieved higher levels of workplace productivity, and had more satisfied staff than did production orientated leaders.

However, others argue that research efforts to identify one universally best style, have been weak at best - leading researchers to discover the importance of the situation in determining which style will work best.

Ohio State Univerity Studies

The Ohio studies, conducted at about the same time as those in Michigan under the direction of Ralph Stogdill, referred to these two ways of leading as: Initiating structure - where managers define and tightly structure the work of staff. Consideration - where managers nurture a feeling of mutual trust and strong intepersonal relations.

Ohio State Univerity Studies

However, these studies did not see the two dimensions of leadership to be mutually exclusive styles, where a manager was either task or relationship focused. Rather, they saw each of these 2 factors as being independent of the other, meaning that it was possible for leaders to show behaviour that was:

High in providing structure to the work of staff, and high in its focus on relationships. High in providing structure to the work of staff, yet low in its focus on relationships. Low in providing structure to the work of staff, yet high in its focus on relationships. Low in providing structure to the work of staff, and low in its focus on relationships.

Ohio State Univerity Studies

Some studies have confirmed that the high-high leaders frequently outperform those who provide low task structure, have a low people focus or both. However, other studies point out that there are always downsides to a manager being high in either their people or their task focus; and

that there may well be situations where it is more is beneficial to favor one over the other.

The Leadership Grid

The Leadership Grid

The leadership grid, also known as the managerial grid model, was developed in the 1960s Robert Blake and Jane Mouton. It provided an easy to understand visual model of earlier research into the two key factors of leadership, and by rating leader behavior using a more finely graded, 1-9 measure, allowed for additional styles to emerge.

A 1,1 style shows a low concern for results and a low concern for people impoverished or abdicated leadership. A 9,1 style shows a high concern for results and a low concern for people compliance management. A 1,9 style shows a low concern for results and a high concern for people the country club manager. A 9,9 style shows a high concern for results and a high concern for people the team leader. A 5,5 style shows a moderate concern for results and a moderate concern for people middle of-the-road management.

The Leadership Grid

Like the Ohio studies, grid theory asserts that the most effective leaders adopt a 9-9 style of leadership, showing both a high concern for people and a high concern for results. Blake and Mouton's 10 year research study supports this assertion that 9-9 leadership is always effective,

however this impact is not always high and there are some specific instances were other leadership styles are more effective.

A Third Factor

The two-factor model of leadership was developed in times of relative stability, where change was continuous but gradual. In the 1990s Scandinavin researchers explored whether, in a world where more extensive and rapid change was becoming the norm, leaders needed to adopt a style that nurtured creativity and innovation. Early evidence indicates that such a developmental style are perceived by their staff to be better leaders

A Third Factor