Wood LDS 1301
Jason Colon
LDS. 1301 (sec. 2)
9-15-16
Chapter 4 – Behavorial Approach
Assignments and Exercises
1. Explain the style/behavorial approach and two general kinds of behaviors. What is the central purpose of the style approach?
- The style/behavioral approach focuses exclusively on what leaders do and how they act. There are two general kinds of behaviors, task behaviors and relationship behaviors. The central purpose of this approach is to see how individuals act when leading a group or an organization.
2. Summarize the research methods and results of the Ohio State and Michigan studies. How were the findings similar and different? What were the overall findings in the collaborative studies in the 1950s and 1960s?
- The Ohio State research group composed their very own LBDQ (Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire) for the purpose of gathering data about leadership behaviors. After several years, researchers found that there are two general types of leader behaviors: initiating structure and consideration. They believed these two behaviors to be distinct and separate from one another. On the other hand, the Michigan studies focused on leadership behavior in small groups. Researches came up with two main behaviors: employee orientation and product orientation. Both being different perspectives on how to look at a situation. Michigan researchers saw both behaviors as inversely related, meaning if an individual focused more on employee orientation, consequently they would have less production orientation. Over further research, Michigan went back on their original proposal that they were inversely related and placed each behavior as independent. Similar to that of Ohio State. The overall findings of research in the 1950s and 60s were ultimately inconclusive. Findings pointed to a leader that was both highly task oriented and highly relationship oriented.
3. Compare and contrast Blake and Mouton’s managerial grid theory to the Ohio State and Michigan studies.
- Blake and Mouton’s managerial grid theory, now known as the leadership theory, has similar aspects when compared to the Ohio State and Michigan studies. The managerial grid theory discussed two main components: concern for production and concern for people. In this way, it is similar to the relationship and task orientations revealed during the Ohio and Michigan studies. The leadership theory goes beyond the previous case studies as it goes further in-depth into what falls under the two orientation styles. It provides an illustration that can aid in knowing what sort of leadership style is being expressed in said business.
4. Study the managerial (leadership) grid and explain the derivation of five major styles. Define each of these styles and explain how a leader with each style might be described.
- Under the leadership grid, there are 5 major styles: 1.) Authority-Compliance, 2.) Country-Club Management, 3.) Impoverished Management, 4.) Middle-of-the-Road Management and 5.) Team Management. These styles are derived from the emphasis being placed on either concern for production or concern for people. The first, Authority-Compliance places much emphasis on completing the task and views the workers as means to an end. A leader for this style may be very demanding and driven. The second, Country-Club Management shows a lack of emphasis on completing tasks and focuses on interpersonal relationships. A leader in this style can be seen as sociable, friendly, comforting and uncontroversial. The third, Impoverished Management is an example of a poor leadership style, where the head has little concern for people or completion of tasks. A leader in this style may be described as uncaring, resigned and apathetic. The fourth, Middle-of-the-Road Management shows a 50/50 spread of equal emphasis being placed on not only completing the task but connecting with the peoples involved. A leader in this style may be described as well-rounded, understanding, safe and expedient. The final one, Team Management is an example of exemplary leadership in which the whole company works together as one large system and thus are able to complete tasks while maintaining strong bonds between co-workers and their job. A leader in this particular style may be seen as determined, inspiring, open-minded and a dedicated worker.
5. Explain the paternalism/maternalism style and how it is derived from the managerial grid.
- Describe as extensively as possible the behaviors associated with this style.
- Those under this style can be described as fatherly/motherly because of the way they treat their co-workers as a family and the business as their home. They reward good behavior and accomplishment and punish noncompliance. Being the head of the household, these sorts of leaders are in charge of key decisions.
- Can you think of any examples of well-known leaders who use this style?
- Dan T. Cathy CEO of Chik-fil-a, a fast food company that heeds to religion and family observance.
- Is a paternalistic/maternalistic leader aware of his or her style?
- Assuming that the leader is aware of the terms, then yes they should be aware of their unique style. Not all leaders view their work and followers this way.
- How would a paternalistic/maternalistic leader score on the Style Questionnaire?
- On the style questionnaire, a leader of this sort would score high for relationships with people as well as good marks for task accomplishment. Most likely somewhere around the Middle-of-the-Road Management.
- What questions would you include on a questionnaire to assess the behaviors associated with this style?
- In order to assess the style of behavior, I would ask questions about the employees and company and how the individual feels about the two. Is the individual heavily dedicated to his work and does he work long hours? What drives them? How do they feel about employees who do well as well as those who aren’t as well off?
6. Explain the opportunistic style and how it is derived from the managerial grid.
- Describe as extensively as possible the behaviors associated with this style.
- A person who falls under this style can be considered self-centered or selfish. They accomplish task and form relationships in any of the five basic styles in order to advance their own portfolio.
- Although some may consider them strategic, they are also known to be ruthless and cunning.
- Can you think of any examples of well-known leaders who use this style?
- An example of a leader who used this style is Hitler of Nazi Germany.
- Is an opportunistic leader aware of his or her style?
- Most definitely. Leaders who fall under this style are aware of their motives and the decisions or actions they take in order to find themselves in a better positon.
- How would an opportunistic leader score on the Style Questionnaire?
- An opportunistic leaders would score high on relations with others because of their ability to connect and work with others. They are most definitely task oriented because of their desire to take advantage and thus would have above par marks for this category.
- What questions would you include on a questionnaire to assess the behaviors associated with this style?
- Questions such as motive and what inspires you are good starter questions to assess the individual. Maybe questions on goals and the process taken to reach them.
7. Complete Case 4.1 (or 4.2. or 4.3) and answer all questions.
- In case 4.1 question #1 I would describe Mark’s leadership as paternalistic, although judging from the story he was not always this way. This leads to question #2 which I will answer by saying that Mark, over time, learned to become more flexible within the company and to pay more attention to those who worked for him. When he finally came around to doing this, he was happier with himself and felt accomplished. He had envisioned himself as being a coach for this group of people he worked with. In response to question #3, at first Mark was focused more on establishing a good foundation for himself and thus was more task oriented. Over time, Mark changes and becomes more of a people person and comes to enjoy seeing his workers prosper and relish in their accomplishments within the company context. For question #4, I feel as if Mark would score in the middle range of Blake and Moulton’s grid because of his emphasis on tasks and on inter-personal connections with co-workers.
8. Rate yourself on the Style Questionnaire. Do your scores suggest that you are more task-oriented or people-oriented? Tell a story that shows how your behavior in one situation illustrated your dominant leadership style.
- Based off of the Style Questionnaire, I would say that I am somewhere in the middle ground. However, I do place more emphasis on getting the tasks at hand accomplished as opposed to establishing work connections with employees. Maybe a (6,4) spread. As an example, I remember being a part of a science fair group in high school. At the time, people were focused on socializing with one another as opposed to working on the project to reach deadlines. I was forced to step-up in this situation and get the ball rolling on the project; completing necessary task and formulating a schedule to finish on time.
9. Is the “Impoverished management” style ever appropriate or desirable for an organization?
- Unless the organization is looking to fail, impoverished management is never a good approach to a purposeful business. Under this style, workers are treated negatively and the tasks are never pushed for. With this lack of interest and motivation within the administration, the organization is doomed to fail.
10. Who is the best leader you know? The worst? To what extent does the style approach account for the differences between these leaders?
- The best leader I ever knew was a military commander I had the pleasure of meeting. The worst leader was probably the student body president my freshman year of high school. On one hand, the military sergeant was loud and affirmative in his statements and was always punctual and aware. The other was negligent and quiet about issues affecting the student body. One took a stand and the other was simply there in place as a figurine, not accomplishing much.