In “Leadership: Theory and Practice”, Northouse studies the Behavioral Approach in leaders as two sides of the same coin: “what they do and how they act” (Northouse, 2012, p.71). This theory is further defined by way of two behaviors: task and relationship (Northouse, 2016). Task relates directly to an outcome of effort while, on the flip side, the relationship is the quality brought into effect within a process; and insofar as these two behaviors gain currency with the followers, so does a given endeavor come to profit. This dualistic approach is given dimensionality by Blake and Mouton in what would become known as The Leadership Grid, which measures a leader’s overall behavior by way of assigning a value to “concern” — for “people” and for “results” (Northouse, 2016). The author elaborates, that behaviors range from dictatorship (“Authority-Compliance”) to relative sensitivity (“Middle of the Road”) and to a maximized concern ideal (“Team”). Furthermore, leaders themselves are identified by the degree to which they act for their own benefit (Opportunistic) or as a nurturer (Paternalism, Maternalism). And dependent upon the degree to which a leader considers his/her leadership efforts successful, the leader’s characterization is only finally expressed in relation to how they assess the possible need for a “plan B” in order to ensure success. Herein lies a compelling concept in the Behavioral Approach. In acknowledging the capacity for leaders to not only be self-serving but also capable of changing strategies in regards to their own assessment of success, one realizes the degree to which vulnerability is not only experienced by the “follower,” but always already defines the “follower.” A follower is prohibited from measuring success because the follower is always, by definition, caught up in a system proposed and enforced by a leader. This is possible even within the idealized “Team.” The leader may indeed be exercising concerns to a maximum, but it could also be an expression of Opportunism — a reminder that “Authority-Compliance” has a twin and its name is “Team.” Two sides to the same coin, indeed.
References:
Northouse (2012). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sixth Edition. SAGE Publications Inc.
cms41 says
The behavioral approach focuses on leadership and the how leaders act toward their followers (Northouse,2016). The two types of leader actions are indicated as either task orientated or relationship orientated. If these are two sides of the same coin then the value depends on which side of the coin is presented and to whom it is presented.
The leader who presents a task-oriented style to a creative, experienced follower may find his style his worthless. This type of follower may reject this leadership style and take a stance against it or simply fall in line performing what is asked of him and nothing more. I would believe that an authoritative leader over creative, experienced followers would not be well received. Followers who wish to have a say in how their work is performed and have the experience to know best practice would resent such a leader. The authoritarian leader presumes his role is to get work accomplished and uses the follower as tools to this end. No relationship or interaction needed (Northouse,2016).This would have no value to a follower who wishes to find satisfaction and pride in his work.
The task-orientated leader who is in charge of an inexperienced follower or one that prefers little to no interaction with management would find the most value in this style. The inexperienced follower needs direction on how to accomplish the work and then completes the task. He is either successful, retrained, or replaced. In areas of business where the follower is expected to come to the workforce with skills and be ready to perform there is no need for any other leadership style. The follower who knows his place and needs no direction would find value in the little interaction of the task leadership. Reward (value) would come from the amount of work accomplished.
The leader who presents a relationship orientated style but has no concern about how tasks should be completed and has nothing to offer the follower but cheerleading is also worthless. The follower looks to the leader not just for supportive word but for supportive action. This style expects the follower to figure on their own how to complete necessary tasks and offers no help to the follower who may be inexperienced or in need of expertise. The country-club style of management has no value to those followers who need task direction for success.
However, this type of leadership would work well for a group of experienced followers who were looking for an enthusiastic leader who could fit in well with an already established team. A reciprocal relationship could be formed allowing the worker to do what they know and the leader supporting their work. As long as the relationship is reciprocal and the leader does not become opportunistic then overtime a team management style could be formed with value for all involved (Northouse,2016).
The value of task leadership versus relationship leadership depends upon who is receiving the leadership, the followers. Leaders are in the end dependent upon the products of their followers to determine their worth.
Northouse (2012). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sixth Edition. SAGE Publications Inc.