The Leadership Grid

• File:T205 2 01i.jpg

This is a theory of management and leadership[[1]] that assumes people vary in their concern for results and their concern for people, and that individuals who are high on both dimensions tend to be the best leaders. Blake and Mouton (1982, 1985) hypothesized that specific leadership styles depend on how a person answers two of these basic questions: (1) How important is the production of results by the group? and (2) How important are the feelings of group members? For many leaders, the achievement of results is their primary goal, but for others, the overall positivity of feelings within the group are so important that they emphasize teamwork and satisfaction. Additionally, other leaders may feel that both of these things are important (Forsyth, 2010).

The differences between these types of leaders are summarized in what Blake and Mouton (1982, 1985) called the Leadership Grid. Both dimensions (concern for people and concern for results) are represented via a 9-point scales ranging from low concern to high concern. There are 81 possible positions on the grid, but there are five that have been emphasized in particular (these exist within the four corners of the grid, as well as the center) (Forsyth, 2010).

The five emphasized positions are as follows:

• Apathetic & Impoverished Leader (position 1,1): hardly a leader, for he/she isn’t interested in either their subordinates’ feelings nor the production of results
• Taskmaster (position 9,1): high on concern for production, but low on concern for people. They seek productivity at any cost.
• ”Country Club” Approach: (Position 1,9): This type of leadership involves making subordinates feel comfortable and relaxed within the group.
• ”Middle of the Road” (Position 5,5): This type of leader tries to balance both performance and morale, but sometimes both may be sacrificed when desired results and individuals’ feelings come into conflict.
• Optimal Leader (Position 9,9): This type of leader values both people and products highly, and tackles organizational goals by utilizing teamwork. There is a high degree of shared responsibility, with much participation and involvement of subordinates.

References

• Blake, R.R., & Mouton, J.S. (1982). The urge to merge: Tying the knot successfully. Training & Development Journal, 37, 41-46.
• Blake, R.R., & Mouton, J.S. (1985). How to achieve integration on the human side of the merger. Organizational Dynamics, 13, 41-56.
• Forsyth, D.R. (2010). Group Dynamics (5th edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.