research on leadership behaviors has identified two general behaviors

Visit the Pennsylvania State University Home Page

PSYCH 485 blog

What is the Style Approach?

July 2, 2016 by Paul Anderson

Can leadership behavior make a difference in the success of a team or an organization? How about the opposite? Can leaders display self-defeating behaviors that hinders the success of a team or an organization? In this blog, I will be discussing the Style Approach, also known as the Behavioral Approach, and how leader behavior affects the followers and the leadership situation. First, we will discuss how the style approach differs from the trait theory, what researchers discovered in studying leadership behavior, and how the theory works (Penn State University World Campus [PSU WC], 2016, L. 5). Finally, I will provide a real-world case study discussing how a leader’s self-defeating behaviors can hinder an organization’s success in reaching its goals.

What advantages does the style approach offer over the trait theory? In the traditional sense, when we think about leadership, we often think about a leader’s traits, such as her intelligence or personality type. As I discussed in my recent blog comment , the trait theory intuitively makes sense; however, similar to other leadership theories, it has its weaknesses. First, the behavioral approach promotes the idea that effective leadership behaviors can be learned, whereas with the trait approach, one is either born with the successful traits or not. Second, unlike the trait theory, the behavioral approach seems to have a direct impact on leadership effectiveness. According to PSU WC (2016, L. 5), leadership traits, such as intelligence or personality types “may only have an indirect relationship with leadership effectiveness” (p. 4) whereas Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy (2012) posit that leadership behaviors seem to have a direct impact on leadership effectives (as cited in PSU WC, 2016, L. 5). Third, one could use the behavioral approach to develop recruiting strategies and career development programs, which could help with identifying and developing successful leaders for their organization (PSU WC, 2016, L. 5). Forth, in contrast with the trait theory, one could directly measure and observe leadership behaviors (PSU WC, 2016, L. 5). For example, it is much easier to observe how a leader treats his or staff members, as compared to trying to observe a leader’s personality style (e.g., her openness to experience). Finally, according to Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy (2012), the style approach takes into account the “leader, follower, and situation,” whereas the trait theory is mainly focused on the leader (as cited in PSU WC, 2016, L. 5).

So what are these leadership behaviors? Researchers have identified two general types of leadership behaviors: task behaviors and relationship behaviors (Northouse, 2016; PSU WC, 2016, L. 5). Task behaviors are involved with accomplishing goals; relationship behaviors are involved with follower’s relationship “with themselves, each other, and with the situation” (PSU WC, 2016, L. 5, p. 4). The primary purpose of the behavioral approach, according to Northouse (2016), is how leaders combines these two behavior types to influence their followers in accomplishing the organizational goals. Many studies have investigated the style approach – most notably are the studies by The Ohio State University, University of Michigan, and Blake and Mouton (Northouse, 2016). Instead of discussing the details of these studies, my blog will focus on the findings that each of them contributed to our understanding of the style approach.

The Ohio State University studies found two broad types of leadership behavior: “initiating structure and consideration,” (Northouse, 2016, p. 72). Initiating structure are the task behaviors and consideration are the relationship behaviors we discussed earlier (PSU WC, 2016, L. 5). More specifically, initiating structure involves work organization, providing task structure, “defining role responsibilities,” and scheduling assignments; consideration includes “building camaraderie, respect, trust, and liking between leaders and followers” (Northouse, 2016, p. 72). According to PSU WC (2016, L. 5), leaders provide their followers with structure and support. That said, The Ohio State University studies viewed the two as separate behaviors, meaning that a leader could be rated high or low in initiating structure and high or low on consideration (PSU WC, 2016, L. 5). So which combination of behaviors is most effective? According to Northouse (2016), it depends on the situation; high consideration can be effective in some situations, high structure is effective in others, and combination of both high structure and high consideration seems to be the best.

The University of Michigan studies also found two broad types of leadership behavior: “employee orientation and production orientation,” (Northouse, 2016, p. 73). Employee orientation, which is “similar to consideration behaviors” (PSU WC, 2016, L. 5, p. 6) describes leaders “who approach subordinates with a strong human relations emphasis” (Northouse, 2016, p. 73). According to Bowers and Seashore (1966), these leaders show interest in their followers, respect their individuality, and give consideration to their followers’ personal needs (as cited in Northouse, 2016). Production orientation, which is “similar to initiating structure behaviors” (PSU WC, 2016, L. 5, p. 6) describes leaders who are concerned with the “technical and production aspects” of their followers’ jobs (Northouse, 2016, p. 73). According to Bowers and Seashore (1966), leaders view their followers “as a means for getting work accomplished” (as cited in Northouse, 2016, p. 73). In contrast with the Ohio State University researchers, the Michigan researchers saw these two leadership behaviors “as opposite ends of a single continuum” where a leader who scored high in employee orientation would be low in production orientation and vice versa (Northouse, 2016, p. 73). However, Kahn (1956) reconceptualized these two behaviors as separate constructs, and the two orientations are considered independent of each other (as cited in Northouse, 2016).

Blake and Mouton developed a model based on managerial behavior called the Managerial Grid®, later renamed to the Leadership Grid®, and is based on two factors: “concern for production and concern for people” (Northouse, 2016, p. 74). The model describes how leaders help their organizations reach their objectives (PSU WC, 2016, L. 5). Even though the model describes these factors as leadership orientations, they closely mirror the task and relationship behaviors that we have discussed so far. According to PSU WC (2016, L. 5), concern for production refers to how leaders are concerned with achieving organizational goals and concern for people refers to how leaders treat their followers in goal attainment. The Leadership Grid is comprised of two axes; the horizontal axis shows the leader’s concern for production and the vertical axis shows the leader’s concern for people (Northouse, 2016; PSU WC, 2016, L. 5). Each axis is based on a 9-point scale; “1 represents minimum concern and 9 represents maximum concern” (PSU WC, 2016, L. 5, p. 7). Accordingly, the Leadership Grid “portrays five major leadership styles” as illustrated in the following graphic.

Source: Boss, R. (2012). What is Blake Mouton’s managerial grid? Retrieved July 1, 2016 from http://www.riskmanagement365.com/2012/12/22/what-is-blake-moutons-managerial-grid/.

Authority-Compliance leadership style is high on task/job requirements and low on concerns for people – with the exception that people are seen as tools for accomplishing the organizational goals (Northouse, 2016; PSU WC, 2016, L.5). Communication with subordinates mostly involves giving instructions; the leader is often controlling and hard driving (Northouse, 2016).

Country-Club Management leadership style is low on task accomplishment and high on concerns for relationships (Northouse, 2016). According to PSU WC (2016, L.5), these leaders mostly focus “on the personal and social needs of followers”; the leader is seen as agreeable and comforting (p. 7).

Impoverished Management leadership style is low on both task and concerns for relationships (Northouse, 2016). The leader performs their leadership duties, but does not get involved and acts withdrawn (Northouse, 2016). The leader is often seen as indifferent and resigned (PSU WC, 2016, L. 5).

Middle-of-the-Road Management leadership style are medium on both concerns for tasks and people (Northouse, 2016). According to PSU WC (2016, L. 5), the leader is interested in progress, but avoids disagreements.

Team Management leadership style are high on both concern for tasks and people (Northouse, 2016). According to PSU WC (2016, L. 5), these leaders promote team participation, set clear priorities, and are willing to discuss open issues with their followers.

According to the Leadership grid, leaders who are highly concerned with people and production are the most successful; however, research has not fully supported this idea (PSU WC, 2016, L. 5). There are situational variables that seem to be at play that determine which type of leadership style is best for which situation (PSU WC, 2016, L. 5); for more information on this topic, please see my previous blog on Contingency Theory .

Now that I have laid the foundation for the style approach, let us talk about how it works. Similar to the trait approach, this framework is descriptive, meaning it does not prescribe how a leader should behave; instead it describes the leader’s behavior (Northouse, 2016; PSU WC, 2016, L. 5). According to PSU WC (2016, L. 5), this leadership approach informs leaders that their actions toward their followers “occur on both task and relationship levels” (p. 8). Some situations warrant the leader’s focus on tasks, while others require the leader’s focus on relationships, and others require the leaders to focus on both (PSU WC, 2016, L. 5). In other words, according to PSU WC (2016, L. 5), some followers want more task direction, others need social support, and some need both.

Finally, let us discuss self-defeating leadership behaviors that can negatively affect a leader, his team, and the organization. In an earlier blog, titled “ The Dark Side of Personality , ” I described a dysfunctional leader who displayed dark-sided traits. In this blog, I will talk about that leader’s self-defeating behaviors.

According to PSU WC (2016, L. 5), researchers at the Center for Creative Leadership wanted to study why certain leaders failed. Their research, along with contributions from other researchers, revealed that “five groups of leader behaviors contributed to leadership failure:” 1) “inability to build relationships,” 2) “failure to meet business objectives,” 3) “inability to lead and build a team,” 4) “inability to adapt,” and 5) “inadequate preparation for promotion” (PSU WC, 2016, L. 5, p. 9). Starting with the first group of ineffective leadership behaviors, Tom shows no regard for his followers’ needs. Moreover, he keeps them out of key meetings and is overly demanding of their time – to the expense of his followers having to work overtime to accomplish their other assigned duties. Second, Tom does not properly address the company’s setbacks in attaining the organization’s sales goals. Instead of making strategic adjustments, he blames the salesmen, the economy, and even the CEO for our poor results. He easily gets distracted and is not focused on improving the sale team’s productivity. Third, Tom does a poor job at building effective teams. If you read my earlier blog on dark-sided personality traits, you might have noticed that Tom’s strength is in alienating team members, instead of building cohesion. Forth, Tom is unable to adapt to the changes in the industry (oil & gas) and attempts to use old strategies that clearly do not address the current economic changes; in effect, Tom is lacking flexibility in changing with the new situation. Finally, Tom lacks the technical understanding of our business and is unable to influence the team with proper direction. As a result, Tom has been unable to improve the sales department’s productivity. Unfortunately, according to the PSU WC (2016, L. 5), many leaders like Tom are unaware of these self-defeating behaviors and how they negatively affect others. As a result, it is very hard to address these self-limitations and properly guide them toward productive behaviors (PSU WC, 2016, L. 5). That said, I am personally results-oriented. If I am not getting the results I want, I start by paying attention to the internal/external factors that are at play. As a leader who would not be gaining traction with my followers, I would be open to feedback and start addressing these limitations one by one. For example, I would get coaching on how to be better at building relationships. Instead of blaming others, I would accept more responsibility for my behaviors. I would hire competent employees and provide them with hands-on management, instead of micromanagement. Finally, I would adopt my style to the situation and the followers’ needs and make adjustments as necessary.

In summary, the style approach helps us see how leader behavior is comprised of both task and relationship behaviors and that the situation influences whether one should be more task focused or relationship focused (PSU WC, 2016, L. 5). More importantly, PSU WC (2016, L. 5) posits that the “style approach suggests that leaders are made, not born” (p. 10). Finally, as we saw earlier, self-defeating behaviors can negatively impact a leader’s effectives in leading his or her team.

What are your thoughts about this approach? Please share any relevant experiences that contribute to this blog.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership theory and practice (7 th ed.) . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2016). PSYCH 485 Lesson 5: Style and situational approaches. Retrieved July 1, 2016 from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/su16/psych485/001/content/05_lesson/03_topic/01_page.html .

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

12.3 What Do Leaders Do? Behavioral Approaches to Leadership

Learning objectives.

Explain the behaviors that are associated with leadership.
Identify the three alternative decision-making styles leaders use and the conditions under which they are more effective.
Discuss the limitations of behavioral approaches to leadership.

Leader Behaviors

When trait researchers became disillusioned in the 1940s, their attention turned to studying leader behaviors. What did effective leaders actually do? Which behaviors made them perceived as leaders? Which behaviors increased their success? To answer these questions, researchers at Ohio State University and the University of Michigan used many different techniques, such as observing leaders in laboratory settings as well as surveying them. This research stream led to the discovery of two broad categories of behaviors: task-oriented behaviors (sometimes called initiating structure ) and people-oriented behaviors (also called consideration ). Task-oriented leader behaviors involve structuring the roles of subordinates, providing them with instructions, and behaving in ways that will increase the performance of the group. Task-oriented behaviors are directives given to employees to get things done and to ensure that organizational goals are met. People-oriented leader behaviors include showing concern for employee feelings and treating employees with respect. People-oriented leaders genuinely care about the well-being of their employees, and they demonstrate their concern in their actions and decisions. At the time, researchers thought that these two categories of behaviors were the keys to the puzzle of leadership (House & Aditya, 1997). However, research did not support the argument that demonstrating both of these behaviors would necessarily make leaders effective (Nystrom, 1978).

Figure 12.7

Behavioral approaches to leadership showed that task-oriented and people-oriented behaviors are two key aspects of leadership.

More Good Foundation – Mormon Leadership – CC BY-NC 2.0.

When we look at the overall findings regarding these leader behaviors, it seems that both types of behaviors, in the aggregate, are beneficial to organizations, but for different purposes. For example, when leaders demonstrate people-oriented behaviors, employees tend to be more satisfied and react more positively. However, when leaders are task oriented, productivity tends to be a bit higher (Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004). Moreover, the situation in which these behaviors are demonstrated seems to matter. In small companies, task-oriented behaviors were found to be more effective than in large companies (Miles & Petty, 1977). There is also some evidence that very high levels of leader task-oriented behaviors may cause burnout with employees (Seltzer & Numerof, 1988).

Leader Decision Making

Another question behavioral researchers focused on involved how leaders actually make decisions and the influence of decision-making styles on leader effectiveness and employee reactions. Three types of decision-making styles were studied. In authoritarian decision making , leaders make the decision alone without necessarily involving employees in the decision-making process. When leaders use democratic decision making , employees participate in the making of the decision. Finally, leaders using laissez-faire decision making leave employees alone to make the decision. The leader provides minimum guidance and involvement in the decision.

As with other lines of research on leadership, research did not identify one decision-making style as the best. It seems that the effectiveness of the style the leader is using depends on the circumstances. A review of the literature shows that when leaders use more democratic or participative decision-making styles, employees tend to be more satisfied; however, the effects on decision quality or employee productivity are weaker. Moreover, instead of expecting to be involved in every single decision, employees seem to care more about the overall participativeness of the organizational climate (Miller & Monge, 1986). Different types of employees may also expect different levels of involvement. In a research organization, scientists viewed democratic leadership most favorably and authoritarian leadership least favorably (Baumgartel, 1957), but employees working in large groups where opportunities for member interaction was limited preferred authoritarian leader decision making (Vroom & Mann, 1960). Finally, the effectiveness of each style seems to depend on who is using it. There are examples of effective leaders using both authoritarian and democratic styles. At Hyundai Motor America, high-level managers use authoritarian decision-making styles, and the company is performing very well (Deutschman, 2004; Welch, Kiley, & Ihlwan, 2008).

Figure 12.8

Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin (shown here) are known for their democratic decision-making styles.

Wikimedia Commons – CC BY 2.0.

The track record of the laissez-faire decision-making style is more problematic. Research shows that this style is negatively related to employee satisfaction with leaders and leader effectiveness (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Laissez-faire leaders create high levels of ambiguity about job expectations on the part of employees, and employees also engage in higher levels of conflict when leaders are using the laissez-faire style (Skogstad et al., 2007).

Leadership Assumptions about Human Nature

Why do some managers believe that the only way to manage employees is to force and coerce them to work while others adopt a more humane approach? Douglas McGregor, an MIT Sloan School of Management professor, believed that a manager’s actions toward employees were dictated by having one of two basic sets of assumptions about employee attitudes. His two contrasting categories, outlined in his 1960 book, The Human Side of Enterprise , are known as Theory X and Theory Y.

According to McGregor, some managers subscribe to Theory X . The main assumptions of Theory X managers are that employees are lazy, do not enjoy working, and will avoid expending energy on work whenever possible. For a manager, this theory suggests employees need to be forced to work through any number of control mechanisms ranging from threats to actual punishments. Because of the assumptions they make about human nature, Theory X managers end up establishing rigid work environments. Theory X also assumes employees completely lack ambition. As a result, managers must take full responsibility for their subordinates’ actions, as these employees will never take initiative outside of regular job duties to accomplish tasks.

In contrast, Theory Y paints a much more positive view of employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Under Theory Y, employees are not lazy, can enjoy work, and will put effort into furthering organizational goals. Because these managers can assume that employees will act in the best interests of the organization given the chance, Theory Y managers allow employees autonomy and help them become committed to particular goals. They tend to adopt a more supportive role, often focusing on maintaining a work environment in which employees can be innovative and prosperous within their roles.

One way of improving our leadership style would be to become conscious about our theories of human nature, and question the validity of our implicit theories.

Source: McGregor, D. (1960). Human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill.

Limitations of Behavioral Approaches

Behavioral approaches, similar to trait approaches, fell out of favor because they neglected the environment in which behaviors are demonstrated. The hope of the researchers was that the identified behaviors would predict leadership under all circumstances, but it may be unrealistic to expect that a given set of behaviors would work under all circumstances. What makes a high school principal effective on the job may be very different from what makes a military leader effective, which would be different from behaviors creating success in small or large business enterprises. It turns out that specifying the conditions under which these behaviors are more effective may be a better approach.

Key Takeaway

When researchers failed to identify a set of traits that would distinguish effective from ineffective leaders, research attention turned to the study of leader behaviors. Leaders may demonstrate task-oriented and people-oriented behaviors. Both seem to be related to important outcomes, with task-oriented behaviors more strongly relating to leader effectiveness and people-oriented behaviors leading to employee satisfaction. Leaders can also make decisions using authoritarian, democratic, or laissez-faire styles. While laissez-faire has certain downsides, there is no best style, and the effectiveness of each style seems to vary across situations. Because of the inconsistency of results, researchers realized the importance of the context in which leadership occurs, which paved the way to contingency theories of leadership.

Give an example of a leader you admire whose behavior is primarily task oriented, and one whose behavior is primarily people oriented.
What are the limitations of authoritarian decision making? Under which conditions do you think authoritarian style would be more effective?
What are the limitations of democratic decision making? Under which conditions do you think democratic style would be more effective?
What are the limitations of laissez-faire decision making? Under which conditions do you think laissez-faire style would be more effective?
Examine your own leadership style. Which behaviors are you more likely to demonstrate? Which decision-making style are you more likely to use?

Baumgartel, H. (1957). Leadership style as a variable in research administration. Administrative Science Quarterly , 2 , 344–360.

Deutschman, A. (2004, September). Googling for courage. Fast Company , 86 , 58–59.

House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo Vadis? Journal of Management , 23 , 409–473.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology , 89 , 755–768.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology , 89 , 36–51.

Miles, R. H., & Petty, M. M. (1977). Leader effectiveness in small bureaucracies. Academy of Management Journal , 20 , 238–250.

Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal , 29 , 727–753.

Nystrom, P. C. (1978). Managers and the hi-hi leader myth. Academy of Management Journal , 21 , 325–331.

Seltzer, J., & Numerof, R. E. (1988). Supervisory leadership and subordinate burnout. Academy of Management Journal , 31 , 439–446.

Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 12 , 80–92.

Vroom, V. H., & Mann, F. C. (1960). Leader authoritarianism and employee attitudes. Personnel Psychology , 13 , 125–140.

Welch, D., Kiley, D., Ihlwan, M. (2008, March 17). My way or the highway at Hyundai. Business Week , 4075 , 48–51.

Share This Book

1.3 What Do Leaders Do? Behavioral Approaches to Leadership

Learning objectives.

Explain the behaviors that are associated with leadership.
Identify the three alternative decision-making styles leaders use and the conditions under which they are more effective.
Discuss the limitations of behavioral approaches to leadership.

Leader Behaviors

Behavioral approaches to leadership showed that task-oriented and people-oriented behaviors are two key aspects of leadership.

More Good Foundation – Mormon Leadership – CC BY-NC 2.0 .

Leader Decision Making

Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin (shown here) are known for their democratic decision-making styles.

Wikimedia Commons – CC BY 2.0 .