When you recruit a new team member, what's your priority? Is it to focus on tasks by explaining the first year's objectives to them? Or, do you spend time understanding their strengths and interests so you can give them tasks that they'll enjoy? Show
No one leadership style is best for all situations, but it's useful to understand what your natural approach is, so you can develop skills that you may be missing. It's unwise to neglect either tasks or people. But, equally, a compromise between the two approaches will likely result in only average team performance, because you neither meet people's needs nor inspire excellent performance. In this article, we look at the Blake Mouton Grid, a popular framework for thinking about a leader's "task versus person" orientation. Click here to view a transcript of this video. What Is the Blake Mouton Grid?The Blake Mouton Grid plots a manager's or leader's degree of task-centeredness versus their person-centeredness, and identifies five different combinations of the two and the leadership styles they produce. It's also known as the Managerial Grid, or Leadership Grid, and was developed in the early 1960s by management theorists Robert Blake and Jane Mouton. The model is based on two behavioral dimensions:
Blake and Mouton defined five leadership styles based on these, as illustrated in the diagram below.
The Leadership Grid® figure from "Leadership Dilemmas – Grid Solutions," by Robert R. Blake and Anne Adams McCanse (formerly the Managerial Grid by Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton). Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, Copyright 1991 by Grid International, Inc. Let's take a look at the five leadership styles in detail. 1. Impoverished Management – Low Results/Low PeopleThe Impoverished or "indifferent" manager is mostly ineffective. With a low regard for creating systems that get the job done, and with little interest in creating a satisfying or motivating team environment, this manager's results are inevitably disorganization, dissatisfaction and disharmony. 2. Produce-or-Perish Management – High Results/Low PeopleAlso known as "authoritarian" or "authority-compliance" managers, people in this category believe that their team members are simply a means to an end. The team's needs are always secondary to its productivity. This type of manager is autocratic, has strict work rules, policies and procedures, and can view punishment as an effective way of motivating team members. This approach can drive impressive production results at first, but low team morale and motivation will ultimately affect people's performance, and this type of leader will struggle to retain high performers. They probably adhere to the Theory X approach to motivation, which assumes that employees are naturally unmotivated and dislike working. A manager who believes people are self-motivated and happy to work is said to follow Theory Y. You can learn more about these theories in our article, Theory X and Theory Y. 3. Middle-of-the-Road Management – Medium Results/Medium PeopleA Middle-of-the-Road or "status quo" manager tries to balance results and people, but this strategy is not as effective as it may sound. Through continual compromise, they fail to inspire high performance and also fail to meet people's needs fully. The result is that their team will likely deliver only mediocre performance. 4. Country Club Management – High People/Low ResultsThe Country Club or "accommodating" style of manager is most concerned about their team members' needs and feelings. They assume that, as long as their people are happy and secure, they'll work hard. What tends to be the result is a work environment that is very relaxed and fun, but where productivity suffers because there is a lack of direction and control. 5. Team Management – High Production/High PeopleAccording to the Blake Mouton model, Team Management is the most effective leadership style. It reflects a leader who is passionate about their work and who does the best they can for the people they work with. Team or "sound" managers commit to their organization's goals and mission, motivate the people who report to them, and work hard to get people to stretch themselves to deliver great results. But, at the same time, they're inspiring figures who look after their teams. Someone led by a Team manager feels respected and empowered, and is committed to achieving her goals. Team managers prioritize both the organization's production needs and their people's needs. They do this by making sure that their team members understand the organization's purpose, and by involving them in determining production needs. When people are committed to, and have a stake in, the organization's success, their needs and production needs coincide. This creates an environment based on trust and respect, which leads to high satisfaction, motivation and excellent results. Team managers likely adopt the Theory Y approach to motivation, as we mentioned above.
Blake and his colleagues added two more leadership styles after Mouton's death in 1987, although neither appears on the grid itself, for the reasons explained below.
Applying the Blake Mouton GridIt is important to understand your management or leadership style, so that you can then identify ways of reaching the target position of Team manager. Step One: Identify Your Managerial Style
Step Two: Identify Areas Where You Can Improve and Develop Your Leadership Skills
Step Three: Put the Grid in ContextThe Team Management style is often the most effective approach, but there are situations that call for more attention to one area than the other. For example, if your company is in the middle of a merger or some other significant change, then it can be acceptable to place a higher emphasis on people than on production, to guide them and reassure them through a potentially difficult time. Likewise, when faced with an emergency, an economic hardship, or a physical risk, concerns about people may be put to one side, for the short term at least, to achieve good results and efficiency. Read our Privacy Policy
There are as many approaches to leadership as there are leaders, from Lewin’s Leadership Styles framework of the 1930s to the more recent ideas about transformational leadership. There are also many general styles, including servant and transactional leadership. Building awareness of frameworks and styles can help you to develop your approach and to be a more effective leader. From Winston Churchill and Angela Merkel, to Queen Elizabeth I and Martin Luther King, there can be as many ways to lead people as there are leaders. Fortunately, businesspeople and psychologists have developed useful frameworks that describe the main ways that people lead. When you understand these frameworks, you can develop your own approach to leadership, and become a more effective leader as a result. In this article and video, we'll highlight some of the common approaches to leadership that you can use. We'll also look at some specific styles of leadership, and we'll explore the advantages and disadvantages of each. Click here to view a transcript of this video.
These frameworks and styles of leadership are based on several different approaches to leadership. You can read more about these approaches in our article on Core Leadership Theories. Useful Leadership Style FrameworksSo, let's look at some useful approaches – shown mainly in the order they appeared – that you can use to become a more effective leader. Your own, personal approach is likely to be a blend of these, depending on your own preferences, your people's needs, and the situation you're in. Lewin's Leadership StylesPsychologist Kurt Lewin developed his framework in the 1930s, and it provided the foundation of many of the approaches that followed afterwards. He argued that there are three major styles of leadership:
Lewin's framework is popular and useful, because it encourages managers to be less autocratic than they might instinctively be. The Blake-Mouton Managerial GridThe Blake-Mouton Managerial Grid was published in 1964, and it highlights the most appropriate style to use, based on your concern for your people and your concern for production/tasks. With a people-oriented style, you focus on organizing, supporting, and developing your team members. This participatory style encourages good teamwork and creative collaboration. With task-oriented leadership, you focus on getting the job done. You define the work and the roles required, put structures in place, and plan, organize, and monitor work. According to this model, the best style to use is one that has both a high concern for people and a high concern for the task – it argues that you should aim for both, rather than trying to offset one against the other. Clearly, this is an important idea! Path-Goal TheoryYou may also have to think about what your team members want and need. This is where Path-Goal Theory – published in 1971 – is useful. For example, highly-capable people, who are assigned to a complex task, will need a different leadership approach from people with low ability, who are assigned to an ambiguous task. (The former will want a participative approach, while the latter need to be told what to do.) With Path-Goal Theory, you can identify the best leadership approach to use, based on your people's needs, the task that they're doing, and the environment that they're working in. Six Emotional Leadership StylesDaniel Goleman, Richard Boyatzis, and Annie McKee detailed their Six Emotional Leadership Styles theory in their 2002 book, "Primal Leadership." The theory highlights the strengths and weaknesses of six common styles – Visionary, Coaching, Affiliative, Democratic, Pacesetting, and Commanding. It also shows how each style can affect the emotions of your team members. Flamholtz and Randle's Leadership Style MatrixFirst published in 2007, Flamholtz and Randle's Leadership Style Matrix shows you the best style to use, based on how capable people are of working autonomously, and how creative or "programmable" the task is. The matrix is divided into four quadrants – each quadrant identifies two possible styles that will be effective for a given situation, ranging from "autocratic/benevolent autocratic" to "consensus/laissez-faire." Transformational LeadershipThe leadership frameworks discussed so far are all useful in different situations, however, in business, "transformational leadership" is often the most effective style to use. (This was first published in 1978, and was then further developed in 1985.) Transformational leaders have integrity and high emotional intelligence. They motivate people with a shared vision of the future, and they communicate well. They're also typically self-aware, authentic, empathetic, and humble. Transformational leaders inspire their team members because they expect the best from everyone, and they hold themselves accountable for their actions. They set clear goals, and they have good conflict-resolution skills. This leads to high productivity and engagement. However, leadership is not a "one size fits all" thing; often, you must adapt your approach to fit the situation. This is why it's useful to develop a thorough understanding of other leadership frameworks and styles; after all, the more approaches you're familiar with, the more flexible you can be. Specific Leadership StylesAs well as understanding the frameworks that you can use to be a more effective leader, and knowing what it takes to be a transformational leader, it's also useful to learn about more general styles, and the advantages and disadvantages of each one. Let's take a look at some other styles of leadership that are interesting, but don't fit with any of the frameworks above.
Remember, not all of these styles of leadership will have a positive effect on your team members, either in the short or long term. (See our article on Dunham and Pierce's Leadership Model for more on how your actions as a leader will affect your team.) Bureaucratic LeadershipBureaucratic leaders follow rules rigorously, and ensure that their people follow procedures precisely. This is appropriate for work involving serious safety risks (such as working with machinery, with toxic substances, or at dangerous heights), or with large sums of money. Bureaucratic leadership is also useful for managing employees who perform routine tasks. This style is much less effective in teams and organizations that rely on flexibility, creativity, or innovation. Charismatic LeadershipCharismatic leadership resembles transformational leadership: both types of leaders inspire and motivate their team members. The difference lies in their intent. Transformational leaders want to transform their teams and organizations, while leaders who rely on charisma often focus on themselves and their own ambitions, and they may not want to change anything. Charismatic leaders might believe that they can do no wrong, even when others warn them about the path that they're on. This feeling of invincibility can severely damage a team or an organization, as was shown in the 2008 financial crisis. Servant LeadershipA "servant leader" is someone, regardless of level, who leads simply by meeting the needs of the team. The term sometimes describes a person without formal recognition as a leader. These people often lead by example. They have high integrity and lead with generosity. Their approach can create a positive corporate culture, and it can lead to high morale among team members. Supporters of the servant leadership model suggest that it's a good way to move ahead in a world where values are increasingly important, and where servant leaders can achieve power because of their values, ideals, and ethics. However, others believe that people who practice servant leadership can find themselves "left behind" by other leaders, particularly in competitive situations. This style also takes time to apply correctly: it's ill-suited to situations where you have to make quick decisions or meet tight deadlines. Transactional LeadershipThis style starts with the idea that team members agree to obey their leader when they accept a job. The "transaction" usually involves the organization paying team members in return for their effort and compliance on a short-term task. The leader has a right to "punish" team members if their work doesn't meet an appropriate standard. Transactional leadership is present in many business leadership situations, and it does offer some benefits. For example, it clarifies everyone's roles and responsibilities. And, because transactional leadership judges team members on performance, people who are ambitious or who are motivated by external rewards – including compensation – often thrive. The downside of this style is that, on its own, it can be chilling and amoral, and it can lead to high staff turnover. It also has serious limitations for knowledge-based or creative work. As a result, team members can often do little to improve their job satisfaction.
In business, transformational leadership is often the best leadership style to use. However, no one style of leadership fits all situations, so it's useful to understand different leadership frameworks and styles. You can then adapt your approach to fit your situation. |