How To Choose A Leadership Pattern

How to Choose a Leadership Pattern by Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt No. 73311

MAY–JUNE 1973 How to Choose a Leadership Pattern Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt Since its publication in HBR’s March–April 1958 issue, this arti- “I’m being paid to lead. If I let a lot of other peo- cle has had such impact and popularity as to warrant its choice as ple make the decisions I should be making, then I’m an “HBR Classic.” Mr. Tannenbaum and Mr. Schmidt succeeded in capturing in a few succinct pages the main ideas involved in the not worth my salt.” question of how managers should lead their organizations. For this “I believe in getting things done. I can’t waste publication, the authors have written a commentary, in which time calling meetings. Someone has to call the shots they look at their article from a 15-year perspective (see page 10.) around here, and I think it should be me.” “I put most problems into my group’s hands and Each of these statements represents a point of leave it to them to carry the ball from there. I serve view about “good leadership.” Considerable experi- merely as a catalyst, mirroring back the people’s ence, factual data, and theoretical principles could thoughts and feelings so that they can better under- be cited to support each statement, even though stand them.” they seem to be inconsistent when placed together. “It’s foolish to make decisions oneself on matters Such contradictions point up the dilemma in which that affect people. I always talk things over with my modern managers frequently find themselves. subordinates, but I make it clear to them that I’m the one who has to have the final say.” “Once I have decided on a course of action, I do New Problem my best to sell my ideas to my employees.” The problem of how modern managers can be “democratic” in their relations with subordinates and at the same time maintain the necessary authority and control in the organizations for which they are respon- Mr. Tannenbaum is Professor of the Development of Human sible has come into focus increasingly in recent years. Systems at the Graduate School of Management, University of Earlier in the century this problem was not so California, Los Angeles. He is also a Consulting Editor of the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science and coauthor (with Irving acutely felt. The successful executive was generally Weschler and Fred Massarik) of Leadership and Organization: A pictured as possessing intelligence, imagination, ini- Behavioral Science Approach (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1961). tiative, the capacity to make rapid (and generally Mr. Schmidt is also affiliated with the UCLA Graduate School of wise) decisions, and the ability to inspire subordi- Management, where he is Senior Lecturer in Behavioral Science. nates. People tended to think of the world as being Besides writing extensively in the fields of human relations and leadership and conference planning, Mr. Schmidt wrote the divided into “leaders” and “followers.” screenplay for a film, “Is It Always Right to be Right?” which New focus: Gradually, however, from the social won an Academy Award in 1970. sciences emerged the concept of “group dynamics” Copyright © 1973 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved.

with its focus on members of the group rather than New need: The net result of the research findings solely on the leader. Research efforts of social scien- and of the human relations training based upon them tists underscored the importance of employee has been to call into question the stereotype of an effec- involvement and participation in decision making. tive leader. Consequently, modern managers often find Evidence began to challenge the efficiency of highly themselves in an uncomfortable state of mind. directive leadership, and increasing attention was Often they are not quite sure how to behave; there paid to problems of motivation and human relations. are times when they are torn between exerting Through training laboratories in group develop- “strong” leadership and “permissive” leadership. ment that sprang up across the country, many of the Sometimes new knowledge pushes them in one direc- newer notions of leadership began to exert an tion (“I should really get the group to help make this impact. These training laboratories were carefully decision”), but at the same time their experience designed to give people a firsthand experience in full pushes them in another direction (“I really under- participation and decision making. The designated stand the problem better than the group and therefore “leaders” deliberately attempted to reduce their I should make the decision”). They are not sure when own power and to make group members as responsi- a group decision is really appropriate or when holding ble as possible for setting their own goals and meth- a staff meeting serves merely as a device for avoiding ods within the laboratory experience. their own decision-making responsibility. It was perhaps inevitable that some of the people The purpose of our article is to suggest a framework who attended the training laboratories regarded this which managers may find useful in grappling with kind of leadership as being truly “democratic” and this dilemma. First, we shall look at the different pat- went home with the determination to build fully par- terns of leadership behavior that managers can choose ticipative decison making into their own organiza- from in relating to their subordinates. Then, we shall tions. Whenever their bosses made a decision without turn to some of the questions suggested by this range convening a staff meeting, they tended to perceive this of patterns. For instance, how important is it for man- as authoritarian behavior. The true symbol of democ- agers’ subordinates to know what type of leadership ratic leadership to some was the meeting—and the they are using in a situation? What factors should less directed from the top, the more democratic it was. they consider in deciding on a leadership pattern? Some of the more enthusiastic alumni of these What difference do their long-run objectives make as training laboratories began to get the habit of cate- compared to their immediate objectives? gorizing leader behavior as “democratic” or “authoritarian.” Bosses who made too many decisions themselves were thought of as authoritarian, and Range of Behavior their directive behavior was often attributed solely Exhibit I presents the continuum or range of pos- to their personalities. sible leadership behavior available to managers. EXHIBIT I Continuum of Leadership Behavior 4 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW May–June 1973

Each type of action is related to the degree of author- point the boss has come before the group with a ity used by the boss and to the amount of freedom solution of his or her own. Not so in this case. The available to subordinates in reaching decisions. The subordinates now get the first chance to suggest actions seen on the extreme left characterize man- solutions. The manager’s initial role involves iden- agers who maintain a high degree of control while tifying the problem. He or she might, for example, those seen on the extreme right characterize man- say something of this sort: “We are faced with a agers who release a high degree of control. Neither number of complaints from newspapers and the extreme is absolute; authority and freedom are never general public on our service policy. What is wrong without their limitations. here? What ideas do you have for coming to grips Now let us look more closely at each of the behav- with this problem?” ior points occurring along this continuum. The function of the group becomes one of increas- The manager makes the decision and announces ing the manager’s repertory of possible solutions to it. In this case the boss identifies a problem, consid- the problem. The purpose is to capitalize on the ers alternative solutions, chooses one of them, and knowledge and experience of those who are on the then reports this decision to the subordinates for “firing line.” From the expanded list of alternatives implementation. The boss may or may not give con- developed by the manager and the subordinates, the sideration to what he or she believes the subordi- manager then selects the solution that he or she nates will think or feel about the decision; in any regards as most promising.1 case, no opportunity is provided for them to partici- The manager defines the limits and requests the pate directly in the decision-making process. group to make a decision. At this point the man- Coercion may or may not be used or implied. ager passes to the group (possibly taking part as a The manager “sells” the decision. Here the man- member) the right to make decisions. Before doing ager, as before, takes responsibility for identifying so, however, he or she defines the problem to be the problem and arriving at a decision. However, solved and the boundaries within which the deci- rather than simply announcing it, he or she takes sion must be made. the additional step of persuading the subordinates to An example might be the handling of a parking accept it. In doing so, the boss recognizes the possi- problem at a plant. The boss decides that this is bility of some resistance among those who will be something that should be worked on by the people faced with the decision, and seeks to reduce this involved, so they are called together. Pointing up the resistance by indicating, for example, what the existence of the problem, the boss tells them: employees have to gain from the decision. “There is the open field just north of the main The manager presents ideas, invites questions. Here plant which has been designated for additional the boss who has arrived at a decision and who employee parking. We can build underground or sur- seeks acceptance of his or her ideas provides an face multilevel facilities as long as the cost does not opportunity for subordinates to get a fuller explana- exceed $100,000. Within these limits we are free to tion of his or her thinking and intentions. After pre- work out whatever solution makes sense to us. After senting the ideas, the manager invites questions so we decide on a specific plan, the company will spend that the associates can better understand what he or the available money in whatever way we indicate.” she is trying to accomplish. This “give and take” The manager permits the group to make decisions also enables the manager and the subordinates to within prescribed limits. This represents an extreme explore more fully the implications of the decision. degree of group freedom only occasionally encoun- The manager presents a tentative decision sub- tered in formal organizations, as, for instance, in many ject to change. This kind of behavior permits the research groups. Here the team of managers or engi- subordinates to exert some influence on the deci- neers undertakes the identification and diagnosis of sion. The initiative for identifying and diagnosing the problem, develops alternative procedures for solv- the problem remains with the boss. Before meeting ing it, and decides on one or more of these alternative with the staff, the manager has thought the problem solutions. The only limits directly imposed on the through and arrived at a decision—but only a tenta- group by the organization are those specified by the tive one. Before finalizing it, he or she presents the superior of the team’s boss. If the boss participates in proposed solution for the reaction of those who will the decision-making process, deciding in advance to be affected by it. He or she says in effect, “I’d like to assist in implementing whatever decision the group hear what you have to say about this plan that I have makes, he or she attempts to do so with no more developed. I’ll appreciate your frank reactions but authority than any other member of the group. will reserve for myself the final decision.” The manager presents the problem, gets sugges- 1. For a fuller explanation of this approach, see Leo Moore, “Too Much tions, and then makes the decision. Up to this Management, Too Little Change,” HBR January–February 1956, p. 41. HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW May–June 1973 5

Key Questions to “make them think it was their idea in the first As the continuum in Exhibit I demonstrates, there place” is a risky one. We believe that it is highly are a number of alternative ways in which managers important for managers to be honest and clear in can relate themselves to the group or individuals describing what authority they are keeping and what they are supervising. At the extreme left of the role they are asking their subordinates to assume in range, the emphasis is on the manager—on what he solving a particular problem. or she is interested in, how he or she sees things, Can you tell how “democratic” a manager is by the how he or she feels about them. As we move toward number of decisions the subordinates make? The the subordinate-centered end of the continuum, sheer number of decisions is not an accurate index however, the focus is increasingly on the subordi- of the amount of freedom that a subordinate group nates—on what they are interested in, how they enjoys. More important is the significance of the deci- look at things, how they feel about them. sions which the boss entrusts to subordinates. When business leadership is regarded in this way, Obviously a decision on how to arrange desks is of an a number of questions arise. Let us take four of espe- entirely different order from a decision involving the cial importance: introduction of new electronic data-processing equip- Can bosses ever relinquish their responsibility by ment. Even though the widest possible limits are delegating it to others? Our view is that managers given in dealing with the first issue, the group will must expect to be held responsible by their superiors sense no particular degree of responsibility. For a boss for the quality of the decisions made, even though to permit the group to decide equipment policy, even operationally these decisions may have been made within rather narrow limits, would reflect a greater on a group basis. They should, therefore, be ready to degree of confidence in them on his or her part. accept whatever risk is involved whenever they del- egate decision-making power to subordinates. Delegation is not a way of “passing the buck.” Also, Deciding How to Lead it should be emphasized that the amount of freedom Now let us turn from the types of leadership which bosses give to subordinates cannot be greater than are possible in a company situation to the question of the freedom which they themselves have been given what types are practical and desirable. What factors by their own superiors. or forces should a manager consider in deciding how Should the manager participate with subordi- to manage? Three are of particular importance: nates once he or she has delegated responsibility to them? Managers should carefully think over this □ Forces in the manager. question and decide on their role prior to involving □ Forces in the subordinates. the subordinate group. They should ask if their pres- □ Forces in the situation. ence will inhibit or facilitate the problem-solving process. There may be some instances when they We should like briefly to describe these elements should leave the group to let it solve the problem for and indicate how they might influence a manager’s itself. Typically, however, the boss has useful ideas action in a decision-making situation.2 The strength to contribute and should function as an additional of each of them will, of course, vary from instance to member of the group. In the latter instance, it is instance, but managers who are sensitive to them important that he or she indicate clearly to the can better assess the problems which face them and group that he or she is in a member role rather than determine which mode of leadership behavior is an authority role. most appropriate for them. How important is it for the group to recognize Forces in the manager: The manager’s behavior what kind of leadership behavior the boss is in any given instance will be influenced greatly by using? It makes a great deal of difference. Many the many forces operating within his or her own per- relationship problems between bosses and subordi- sonality. Managers will, of course, perceive their nates occur because the bosses fail to make clear leadership problems in a unique way on the basis of how they plan to use their authority. If, for example, their background, knowledge, and experience. the boss actually intends to make a certain decision, Among the important internal forces affecting them but the subordinate group gets the impression that will be the following: he or she has delegated this authority, considerable 1. Their value system. How strongly do they feel confusion and resentment are likely to follow. that individuals should have a share in making the Problems may also occur when the boss uses a “democratic” facade to conceal the fact that he or 2. See also Robert Tannenbaum and Fred Massarik, “Participation by she has already made a decision which he or she Subordinates in the Managerial Decision-Making Process,” Canadian hopes the group will accept as its own. The attempt Journal of Economics and Political Science, August 1950, p. 413. 6 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW May–June 1973

decisions which affect them? Or, how convinced are agers understand these factors, the more accurately they that the official who is paid to assume respon- they can determine what kind of behavior on their sibility should personally carry the burden of deci- part will enable subordinates to act most effectively. sion making? The strength of their convictions on Generally speaking, managers can permit subordi- questions like these will tend to move managers to nates greater freedom if the following essential con- one end or the other of the continuum shown in ditions exist: Exhibit I. Their behavior will also be influenced by the relative importance that they attach to organiza- □ If the subordinates have relatively high needs for tional efficiency, personal growth of subordinates, independence. (As we all know, people differ greatly and company profits.3 in the amount of direction that they desire.) 2. Their confidence in subordinates. Managers If the subordinates have a readiness to assume differ greatly in the amount of trust they have in other responsibility for decision making. (Some see addi- people generally, and this carries over to the particu- tional responsibility as a tribute to their ability; oth- lar employees they supervise at a given time. In view- ers see it as “passing the buck.”) ing his or her particular group of subordinates, the □ If they have a relatively high tolerance for ambi- manager is likely to consider their knowledge and guity. (Some employees prefer to have clear-cut competence with respect to the problem. A central directives given to them; others prefer a wider area question managers might ask themselves is: “Who is of freedom.) best qualified to deal with this problem?” Often they □ If they are interested in the problem and feel that may, justifiably or not, have more confidence in their it is important. own capabilities than in those of subordinates. □ If they understand and identify with the goals of 3. Their own leadership inclinations. There are the organization. some managers who seem to function more comfort- □ If they have the necessary knowledge and experi- ably and naturally as highly directive leaders. ence to deal with the problem. Resolving problems and issuing orders come easily to □ If they have learned to expect to share in decision them. Other managers seem to operate more comfort- making. (Persons who have come to expect strong ably in a team role, where they are continually sharing leadership and are then suddenly confronted with many of their functions with their subordinates. the request to share more fully in decision making 4. Their feelings of security in an uncertain situa- are often upset by this new experience. On the other tion. Managers who release control over the decision- hand, persons who have enjoyed a considerable making process thereby reduce the predict- amount of freedom resent bosses who begin to make ability of the outcome. Some managers have a greater all the decisions themselves.) need than others for predictability and stability in their environment. This “tolerance for ambiguity” is being Managers will probably tend to make fuller use of viewed increasingly by psychologists as a key variable their own authority if the above conditions do not in a person’s manner of dealing with problems. exist; at times there may be no realistic alternative Managers bring these and other highly personal to running a “one-man show.” variables to each situation they face. If they can see The restrictive effect of many of the forces will, of them as forces which, consciously or unconsciously, course, be greatly modified by the general feeling of influence their behavior, they can better understand confidence which subordinates have in the boss. what makes them prefer to act in a given way. And Where they have learned to respect and trust the understanding this, they can often make themselves boss, he or she is free to vary his or her own behav- more effective. ior. The boss will feel certain that he or she will not Forces in the subordinate: Before deciding how to be perceived as an authoritarian boss on those occa- lead a certain group, managers will also want to con- sions when he or she makes decisions alone. sider a number of forces affecting their subordinates’ Similarly, the boss will not be seen as using staff behavior. They will want to remember that each meetings to avoid decision-making responsibility. In employee, like themselves, is influenced by many per- a climate of mutual confidence and respect, people sonality variables. In addition, each subordinate has a tend to feel less threatened by deviations from nor- set of expectations about how the boss should act in mal practice, which in turn makes possible a higher relation to him or her (the phrase “expected behavior” degree of flexibility in the whole relationship. is one we hear more and more often these days at dis- Forces in the situation: In addition to the forces cussions of leadership and teaching). The better man- which exist in managers themselves and in the subordinates, certain characteristics of the general situa- 3. See Chris Argyris, “Top Management Dilemma: Company Needs vs. tion will also affect managers’ behavior. Among the Individual Development,” Personnel, September 1955, pp. 123–134. more critical environmental pressures that surround HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW May–June 1973 7

them are those which stem from the organization, powerful influence on the group’s functioning. the work group, the nature of the problem, and the The problem itself—The nature of the problem pressures of time. Let us look briefly at each of these: may determine what degree of authority should be Type of organization—Like individuals, organiza- delegated by managers to their subordinates. tions have values and traditions which inevitably Obviously, managers will ask themselves whether influence the behavior of the people who work in subordinates have the kind of knowledge which is them. Managers who are newcomers to a company needed. It is possible to do them a real disservice by quickly discover that certain kinds of behavior are assigning a problem that their experience does not approved while others are not. They also discover equip them to handle. that to deviate radically from what is generally Since the problems faced in large or growing accepted is likely to create problems for them. industries increasingly require knowledge of special- These values and traditions are communicated in ists from many different fields, it might be inferred numerous ways—through job descriptions, policy pro- that the more complex a problem, the more anxious nouncements, and public statements by top execu- a manager will be to get some assistance in solving tives. Some organizations, for example, hold to the it. However, this is not always the case. There will notion that the desirable executive is one who is be times when the very complexity of the problem dynamic, imaginative, decisive, and persuasive. Other calls for one person to work it out. For example, if organizations put more emphasis upon the importance the manager has most of the background and factual of the executive’s ability to work effectively with peo- data relevant to a given issue, it may be easier for ple—human relations skills. The fact that the person’s him or her to think it through than to take the time superiors have a defined concept of what the good exec- to fill in the staff on all the pertinent background utive should be will very likely push the manager information. toward one end or the other of the behavioral range. The key question to ask, of course, is: “Have I In addition to the above, the amount of employee heard the ideas of everyone who has the necessary participation is influenced by such variables as the knowledge to make a significant contribution to the size of the working units, their geographical dis- solution of this problem?” tribution, and the degree of inter- and intra-organi- The pressure of time—This is perhaps the most zational security required to attain company goals. clearly felt pressure on managers (in spite of the fact For example, the wide geographical dispersion of an that it may sometimes be imagined). The more that organization may preclude a practical system of par- they feel the need for an immediate decision, the ticipative decision making, even though this would more difficult it is to involve other people. In orga- otherwise be desirable. Similarly, the size of the nizations which are in a constant state of “crisis” working units or the need for keeping plans confi- and “crash programming” one is likely to find man- dential may make it necessary for the boss to exer- agers personally using a high degree of authority cise more control than would otherwise be the case. with relatively little delegation to subordinates. Factors like these may limit considerably the man- When the time pressure is less intense, however, it ager’s ability to function flexibly on the continuum. becomes much more possible to bring subordinates Group effectiveness—Before turning decision- in on the decision-making process. making responsibility over to a subordinate group, the boss should consider how effectively its mem- These, then, are the principal forces that impinge bers work together as a unit. on managers in any given instance and that tend to One of the relevant factors here is the experience determine their tactical behavior in relation to sub- the group has had in working together. It can gener- ordinates. In each case their behavior ideally will be ally be expected that a group which has functioned that which makes possible the most effective for some time will have developed habits of coopera- attainment of their immediate goals within the lim- tion and thus be able to tackle a problem more effec- its facing them. tively than a new group. It can also be expected that a group of people with similar backgrounds and Long-Run Strategy interests will work more quickly and easily than peo- As managers work with their organizations on the ple with dissimilar backgrounds, because the com- problems that come up day to day, their choice of a munication problems are likely to be less complex. leadership pattern is usually limited. They must The degree of confidence that the members have take account of the forces just described and, within in their ability to solve problems as a group is also a the restrictions those factors impose on them, do the key consideration. Finally, such group variables as best that they can. But as they look ahead months or cohesiveness, permissiveness, mutual acceptance, even years, they can shift their thinking from tactics and commonality of purpose will exert subtle but to large-scale strategy. No longer need they be fet- 8 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW May–June 1973

tered by all of the forces mentioned, for they can tants. To provide the individual or the group with view many of them as variables over which they greater freedom than they are ready for at any given have some control. They can, for example, gain new time may very well tend to generate anxieties and insights or skills for themselves, supply training for therefore inhibit rather than facilitate the attain- individual subordinates, and provide participative ment of desired objectives. But this should not keep experiences for their employee group. managers from making a continuing effort to con- In trying to bring about a change in these vari- front subordinates with the challenge of freedom. ables, however, they are faced with a challenging In summary, there are two implications in the question: At which point along the continuum basic thesis that we have been developing. The first should they act? is that successful leaders are those who are keenly Attaining objectives: The answer depends largely on aware of the forces which are most relevant to their what they want to accomplish. Let us suppose that they behavior at any given time. They accurately under- are interested in the same objectives that most modern stand themselves, the individuals and groups they managers seek to attain when they can shift their atten- are dealing with, and the company and broader tion from the pressure of immediate assignments: social environment in which they operate. And cer- tainly they are able to assess the present readiness 1. To raise the level of employee motivation. for growth of their subordinates. 2. To increase the readiness of subordinates to But this sensitivity or understanding is not accept change. enough, which brings us to the second implication. 3. To improve the quality of all managerial deci- Successful leaders are those who are able to behave sions. appropriately in the light of these perceptions. If 4. To develop teamwork and morale. direction is in order, they are able to direct; if con- 5. To further the individual development of siderable participative freedom is called for, they are employees. able to provide such freedom. Thus, successful managers of people can be pri- In recent years managers have been deluged with a marily characterized neither as strong leaders nor as flow of advice on how best to achieve these longer- permissive ones. Rather, they are people who main- run objectives. It is little wonder that they are often tain a high batting average in accurately assessing both bewildered and annoyed. However, there are the forces that determine what their most appropri- some guidelines which they can usefully follow in ate behavior at any given time should be and in actu- making a decision. ally being able to behave accordingly. Being both Most research and much of the experience of insightful and flexible, they are less likely to see the recent years give a strong factual basis to the theory problems of leadership as a dilemma. that a fairly high degree of subordinate-center behavior is associated with the accomplishment of the five 4. For example, see Warren H. Schmidt and Paul C. Buchanan, Techniques that Produce Teamwork (New London, Arthur C. Croft purposes mentioned.4 This does not mean that man- Publications, 1954); and Morris S. Viteles, Motivation and Morale in agers should always leave all decisions to their assis- Industry (New York, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1953). HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW May–June 1973 9

Retrospective Commentary Since this HBR Classic was first published in 1958, These and other societal changes make effective lead- there have been many changes in organizations and in ership in this decade a more challenging task, requiring the world that have affected leadership patterns. While even greater sensitivity and flexibility than was needed the article’s continued popularity attests to its essen- in the 1950’s. Today’s manager is more likely to deal tial validity, we believe it can be reconsidered and with employees who resent being treated as subordi- updated to reflect subsequent societal changes and new nates, who may be highly critical of any organizational management concepts. system, who expect to be consulted and to exert influ- The reasons for the article’s continued relevance can ence, and who often stand on the edge of alienation from be summarized briefly: the institution that needs their loyalty and commitment. In addition, the manager is frequently confronted The article contains insights and perspectives which by a highly turbulent, unpredictable environment. mesh well with, and help clarify, the experiences of In response to these social pressures, new concepts of managers, other leaders, and students of leadership. management have emerged in organizations. Open-sys- Thus it is useful to individuals in a wide variety of orga- tem theory, with its emphasis on subsystems’ inter- nizations—industrial, governmental, educational, reli- dependency and on the interaction of an organization gious, and community. with its environment, has made a powerful impact on The concept of leadership the article defines is managers’ approach to problems. Organization devel- reflected in a continuum of leadership behavior (see opment has emerged as a new behavioral science Exhibit I in original article). Rather than offering a approach to the improvement of individual, group, choice between two styles of leadership, democratic or organizational, and interorganizational performance. New authoritarian, it sanctions a range of behavior. research has added to our understanding of motivation in The concept does not dictate to managers but helps the work situation. More and more executives have become them to analyze their own behavior. The continuum concerned with social responsibility and have explored the permits them to review their behavior within a context feasibility of social audits. And a growing number of organi- of other alternatives, without any style being labeled zations, in Europe and in the United States, have conducted right or wrong. experiments in industrial democracy. (We have sometimes wondered if we have, perhaps, In light of these developments, we submit the fol- made it too easy for anyone to justify his or her style of lowing thoughts on how we would rewrite certain leadership. It may be a small step between being non- points in our original article. judgmental and giving the impression that all behavior The article described forces in the manager, subordi- is equally valid and useful. The latter was not our nates, and the situation as givens, with the leadership intention. Indeed, the thrust of our endorsement was pattern a result of these forces. We would now give more for managers who are insightful in assessing relevant attention to the interdependency of these forces. For forces within themselves, others, and situations, and example, such interdependency occurs in: (a) the inter- who can be flexible in responding to these forces.) play between the manager’s confidence in subordinates, In recognizing that our article can be updated, we are their readiness to assume responsibility, and the level of acknowledging that organizations do not exist in a vac- group effectiveness; and (b) the impact of the behavior of uum but are affected by changes that occur in society. the manager on that of subordinates, and vice versa. Consider, for example, the implications for organiza- In discussing the forces in the situation, we primar- tions of these recent social developments: ily identified organizational phenomena. We would now include forces lying outside the organization and > The youth revolution that expresses distrust and even would explore the relevant interdependencies between contempt for organizations identified with the establish- the organization and its environment. ment. In the original article, we presented the size of the > The civil rights movement that demands all minor- rectangle in Exhibit I as a given, with its boundaries ity groups be given a greater opportunity for participa- already determined by external forces—in effect, a tion and influence in the organizational processes. closed system. We would now recognize the possibility > The ecology and consumer movements that challenge of the manager and/or the subordinates taking the ini- the right of managers to make decisions without consid- tiative to change those boundaries through interaction ering the interest of people outside the organization. with relevant external forces—both within their own > The increasing national concern with the quality of organization and in the larger society. working life and its relationship to worker productiv- The article portrayed the manager as the principal ity, participation, and satisfaction. and almost unilateral actor. He or she initiated and (continued) 10 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW May–June 1973

EXHIBIT II Continuum of Manager-Nonmanager Behavior Nonmanager power Manager power and influence and influence Area of freedom for manager Area of freedom for nonmanagers Manager able to Manager must "sell" Manager make Manager his or her presents decision presents Manager decision decision Manager which tentative presents before but must defines Manager and non- decision problem, gaining respond to limits within non-managers managers subject to gets inputs acceptance. questions which jointly make accept. change from non- from non- nonmanagers decision after nonmanagers, managers. make within limits manager then inputs. decides. decision. defined by TH R e s u lt organizational E ant ma nag constraints. OR er and GA nonma INI nager b e h av io Z AT r I O NA L E N V I RO N M E N T THE SOCIE TA L E N V I RO N M E N T determined group functions, assumed responsibility, vision with respect to the realities of power. We did not and exercised control. Subordinates made inputs and attempt to deal with unions, other forms of joint worker assumed power only at the will of the manager. action, or with individual workers’ expressions of resis- Although the manager might have taken outside forces tance. Today, we would recognize much more clearly into account, it was he or she who decided where to the power available to all parties and the factors that operate on the continuum—that is, whether to underlie the interrelated decisions on whether to use it. announce a decision instead of trying to sell the idea to In the original article, we used the terms “manager” subordinates, whether to invite questions, to let subor- and “subordinate.” We are now uncomfortable with dinates decide an issue, and so on. While the manager “subordinate” because of its demeaning, dependency- has retained this clear prerogative in many organiza- laden connotations and prefer “nonmanager.” The tions, it has been challenged in others. Even in situa- titles “manager” and “nonmanager” make the termi- tions where managers have retained it, however, the nological difference functional rather than hierarchical. balance in the relationship between managers and sub- We assumed fairly traditional organizational struc- ordinates at any given time is arrived at by interac- tures in our original article. Now we would alter our tion—direct or indirect—between the two parties. formulation to reflect newer organizational modes Although power and its use by managers played a which are slowly emerging, such as industrial democ- role in our article, we now realize that our concern racy, intentional communities, and “phenomenar- with cooperation and collaboration, common goals, chy.”* These new modes are based on observations commitment, trust, and mutual caring limited our such as the following: (continued) HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW May–June 1973 11

> Both manager and nonmanagers may be governing The arrows in the exhibit indicate the continual flow forces in their group’s environment, contributing to the of interdependent influence among systems and people. definition of the total area of freedom. The points on the continuum designate the types of > A group can function without a manager, with man- manager and nonmanager behavior that become possi- agerial functions being shared by group members. ble with any given amount of freedom available to > A group, as a unit, can be delegated authority and each. The new continuum is both more complex and can assume responsibility within a larger organiza- more dynamic than the 1958 version, reflecting the tional context. organizational and societal realities of 1973. Our thoughts on the question of leadership have prompted us to design a new behavior continuum (see Exhibit II) in which the total area of freedom shared by *For a description of phenomenarchy, see Will McWhinney, manager and nonmanagers is constantly redefined by inter- “Phenomenarchy: A Suggestion for Social Redesign,” Journal of actions between them and the forces in the environment. Applied Behavioral Science, May 1973. 12 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW May–June 1973

How To Choose A Leadership Pattern

by Sreehari Menon

Accessibility

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 1

Statistics

How To Choose A Leadership Pattern Document Transcript