Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.



Published on

Published in: Entertainment & Humor
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this


  1. 1. CHAPTER 23 Task- versus Relations- Oriented LeadershipAs was noted earlier, leaders differ from each other in ments and getting the work done. Ahigh task orientationtheir focus of attention. Some concentrate on the task io underlies selected types of leaders, such as Birnbrauerbe accomplished, and some concentrate on the quality and Tysons (1984) hard driver and persuader or Reddinsof their relationships with others. For instance, the be· (1977) autocrat. Purely task-oriented leaders are likely tohavior of project and team leaders can be described in keep their distance psychologically from their followersterms of structuring patterns of communication and and to be more cold and aloof (Blau & Scott, 1962).working methods for their groups. Their behavior can When coupled with an inability to trust subordinates,also be described in terms of their friendship and mutual such concern for production is likely to manifest itself intrust building (Bergen, 1986). Most effective are leade:-s close, controlling supervision (McGregor, 1960). Su::cess-who do both; least effective are those who do neither. fultask·oriented leaders are instmmental in contributingThus, when Berkowitz (1953a) asked members of air- to their groups effectiveness by setting goals, allocatingcrews to describe their aircrew commander with a behav· labor, and enforcing sanctions (Bales, 1958a). They initioioral description inventory, a factor analysis of the results ate structure for their followers (Hemphill, 1950a), definerevealed factors concerned with both task and relation· the roles of others, explain what to do and why, establishships, including maintaining standards of performance, well·defined patterns of organization and channels ofacting on an awareness of situational needs, maintaining communication, and determine the ways to accomplishcoordination and teamwork, and behaving in a nurturant assignments (Hersey & Blanchard, 1981).manner. Misumi (1985) conceived task-oriented leadership be· havior as performance leadership-leadership behavior that prompts and motivates the groups achievement ofMeanings goals (for example, when deadlines are necessary, the leader clearly specifies them and has a good grasp of howTask Orientation ~ work is progressing). For Cleveland (1980), such a focusLeaders differ in their concern for the groups goals and on the task is seen in strategic thinking, in projecting pat·the means to achieve the goals. Those with a strong con· terns of collective behavior, and in considering the wholecern are considered to be task oriented (Bass, I967b; situation. It is also seen in the leaders manifest curiosityFiedler, I967a), concerned with production (Blake & about issues and methods and the system that can con·Mouton, 1964), in need of achievement (McClelland, nect people and things to achieve objectives. Immediate1961; Wofford, 1970), achievement oriented (Indvik, supervision, combined with management as a whole, can1986b), production oriented (Katz, Maccoby, & Morse, foster a "culture of productivity"-a shared image of a1950), production emphasizing (Fleishman, 1957a), goal highly productive work setting-in which supervisors,achieving (Cartwright & Zander, 1960), and work facilita· managers, and workers alike focus on the work beingtive and goal emphasizing (Bowers & Seashore, 1966). done and how to maintain successful operations. AkinThe leaders -assumptions about their roles, purposes, and Hopelain (1986) described such a "culture of produc-and behavior reflect their interest in completing assign· tivity" in three highly productive organizations. 472
  2. 2. Task- versus Relations-Oriented Leadership 473 Caveat. Although the various conceptualizations of is linked to relationship behavior: maintaining personaltask orientation have similar-sounding labels, their in- relationships, opening channels of communication,tercorrelations are not necessarily high. In fact, they and delegating to give subordinates opportunities tomay point to different attributes of an individual. use their potential. It is characterized by involved sup-Thus, the direct assessment of the task orientation of port, friendship, and mutual trust. It is leadership that81 Polish industrial personnel-using the Orientation is democratic and employee oriented, rather than auto·Inventory (ORI), which asks examinees for their pre- cratic and production oriented. Mlsumi (1985, p.ll)ferred activities-correlated only.32 with the need for saw it as maintenance-oriented leadership behaviorachievement as measured by the Thematic Appercep- directed toward dispe))jng excessive tensions thattion Test, pn assessment of the projected fantasies of arise in interpersonal relations within a group or or-the same examinees (Dobruszek, 1967). Similarly, ganization, promoting the resohnion of conflict andFiedlers (1967a) determination of task orientation, strife, giving encouragement and support, providingbased on the leaders rejection of the co-worker with an opportunity for minority opinions to be ex-whom they have found it more difficult to work, does pressed, inspiring personal need fulfillment and pro-not correlate as highly with other approaches to mea- moting an acceptance of interdependence amongsuring task orientation. (In fact, the least preferred co- group members.worker measure seems so unique that it will be treatedseparately in this chapter.) Thus, it is necessary to re· Relations·oriented supervision is seen in the commu·view results in the light of variations beer.use of how nication patterns of supervisors and subordinates. Kir-task orientation and relations orientation are mea- meyer and Lin (1987) arranged for observers to recordsured. an average of 107 face-to· face interactions with the suo pervisors of 60 randomly chosen police radio dispatch·Relations Orientation ers. Communications with the dispatchers supervisors were facilitated if the dispatchers felt they were receiv· Leaders also differ in the extent to which they pursue a ing social support from their superiors. Felt supporthuman relations approach and try to maintain friendly, correlated .33 with the dispatchers communicationssupportive relations with their followers. Those with a about work to their superior and .48 with communi-strong concern are identified as relations oriented cations to their superiors about other matters. It corre-(Katz, Maccoby, & Morse, 1950), concerned for mainte- lated .55 ancl .26 with observed face-to-face communi-nance (Misumi, 1985) or group maintenance (Cart- cations from the superiors to the dispatchers aboutwright & Zander, 1960; Wofford, 1970), concerned for work and nonwork matters.people (Blake & Mouton, 1964), people centered (D. R. The concern for relations is manifest in differentAnderson, 1974), interaction facilitative and supportive ways with different systems. Such concern that is in-(Bowers & Seashore, 1966), interaction oriented (Bass, volved in shifting organizations from autocratic sys-I967b), employe~emphasizing (Fleishman, 1957a), and tems I and 2 to democratic systems 3 and 4 (Likert,in need of affiliation (McClelland, 1961). Such leaders 1977,) ,md in contributing to industrial democracy andare expressive and tend to establish social and emo· participative management. The concern for relationstional ties (Bales, 1958a). UsuaJly associated with a rela· is central to humanistic management (Daley, 1986),tions orientation are the leaders sense of trust in subor- which is dedicated to promoting the personal signifi-dinates, less felt need to control them, and more cance of work, the autonomy of employees, and fair-general rather than close supervision of the subordi- ness in appraisals. It is seen in Britain with Theory P,nates (McGregor, 1960). a deemphasis of traditional management-employee re- Astrong relations orientation is the basis of Reddins(1977) "missionary" and "developer" types of leader lationships in favor of managements increased aware- ness of employees needs, increased involvement in theand with consider:ltion for the welfare of subordinates(Hemphill, 1950a). For Hersey and Blanchard (1918), it ISel ehlpkrs 14 ami 21.
  3. 3. 474 Leadership and Managementcommunity, and increased use of consultation (Jaap, Although for the purposes of discussion and analysis,1982). It is seen in Japanese management and Theory task· and relations orientation are treated separatelyZ, with its emphasis on long-term employment, unhur- here, Blake and Mouton (1964), Cleveland (1980), andried evaluation and promotion processes, wide·ranging many others, strongly advocated leadership that inte·career opportunities, and consensual decision making grates both the task· and the relations orientations.(Ouchi, 1981). Leaders have to be strong and decisive, yet sensitive to people (Calloway, 1985). Blake and Mouton (1964) argued that maximum leadership effectiveness occursComplications only when the leader, both highly concerned for pro·Although measurements for research use, such as duction and highly concerned for people, integratesthose of Fiedler (1967a) or Bass (1967b), often artifi- the human and task requirements of the job. The ex·cially force separation into the categories of task· or reo c1usively task-oriented manager is seen to treat employ.lations orientation, conceptually, leaders may have ees as machines, to the detriment of the employeesstrong concerns for both task and relationships or for commitment, growth, and morale. The exclusivelyneither. At the same time, observers can accurately dis· people·oriented manager is viewed as running a "coun·criminate among the ratings for emerging task and socio· try club," to the detriment of productivity.2emotional leadership earned by interacting members ofexperimental task groups (Stein, Ceis & Damarin, Antecedents Contributing1973). to Task Orientation A strong concern for relationships and for task ac· and Relations Orientationcomplishment may both be linked to some of the samekinds of leadership behavior. For instance, Hennigar As with the tendencies and preferences for directionand Taylor (1980) found that the assessed receptivity or participation, task or relations orientation tend toto change of 80 middle·management administrators of depend on the leaders personal characteristics as wellpublic schools was high if the administrators were as situational contingencies. These contingencies in·either highly concerned for people or highly concerned clude the characteristics of the follower and of the or·for productivity. But a lack of concern for either was ganization and the task, goals, and constraints in theconnected with a lack of openness to change. situation in which the leadership occurs. Further complicating matters are the "switch·hit·ters." Although the autocratic leader is likely to be di· Personal Antecedentsreelive and caught up with getting the work done andthe democratic leader is likely to be participative and Following Bales (1958a) and Etzioni (1965), Downtonconcerne1t about maintaining relationships, neverthe· (1973) surmised that instrumental (task·oriented) andless, some benevolent autocrats, who pursue a patron· expressive (relations.oriented) modes of leadership areizing leadership style, arc still likely to be concerned assumed by individuals with different temperaments.about their relationships and the needs of their follow- Instrumental leaders are seen to be more aggressive,ers. Likewise, highly task·oriented democratic leaders more able to tolerate hostility, and more anxious to bemay encourage participation in decision making in the respected; expressive leaders are more accommodat·interests of reaching high-quality decisions. Presum· ing, less able to tolerate hostility, and more anxiolls toably, they would be characterized as R. Likerts (1977) be loved.System 4 leaders. A variety of surveys and experiments demonstrated Relations-oriented leadership is likely to contribute this linkage of personality to leadership orientation. Forto the development of followers and to more mature instance, Klebanoff (1976) made use of observers andrelationships. However, task-oriented leadership can be peers rankings of the task- or relations-oriented behav-the source of expert advice and challenging motivation :Kahn and Katz(1953), R. Likert {l977a~ and Oaklander and Heishmanfor subordinates. (196-1). among many others, came to similar conclusions.
  4. 4. Task- versus Relations-Oriented Leadership 475ior displayed by 160 participants in 40 small groups that were seen by their subordinates to provide emotionalwere working on various tasks. Task-oriented leaders support and to help in solving the subordinates prob-were more likely to have been first-born children; they lems. Supervisors offering such support and assistancefelt more personal autonomy and tended to be more also scored higher in personal competence, sociability,actively involved. Helmich and Erzen (1975) surveyed emotionality, and altruism. "-108 corporation presidents and found that task·ori- In a Polish study, task orientation on the ORI wasented leaders lacked fulfillment as presidents. The found to correlate positively as high as .41 with intelli·needs of relations·oriented presidents were better met gence, as measured by a Polish version of the Armyby their assignment. General Classification Test. Interaction (relations) ori- entation correlated negatively as low as -.32 (Dobrus· Results with the ORI. Preferences of the highly task- zek, 1967).oriented examinee on the ORI (Bass, 1962c) included Immutable Conditions? These penonal factors, sel·to be wise; to have the feeling of a job well done; to dom mentioned in the prescriptive literature of thehave bright, interesting friends; and to be a leader who past two decades, call attention to Fiedlers (1967a)argu-gets things done. Interaction·oriented (relations·ori. ment that often one needs to find or change the situa-ented) preferences included to have fun with friends, tions to fit the leaders personality. These personal fac·to have helpful friends, to work cooperatively, to make tors make managers and administrators skeptical aboutmore friends, and to be an easy-to·talk·to leader. Ac- the possibilities of training and developing leaders tocording to the scores on various personality invento- be both relations· and task oriented and about those ries, personal factors significantly correlated with task who say they are already. Nevertheless, the correlationsorientation, as assessed by the ORI, included being of task- and relations orientation with personality and mor~ highly self·sufficient, resourceful, controlled in intelligence are modest. Much can be changed in lead·will power, aloof, not sociable, sober-serious, ership orientation and behavior through learning, rolealistic, and aggressive-competitive (Bass & Dunteman, modeling, and experience, reinforced by socialization 1963). Task·oriented leaders were more likely to show processes and organizational culture. Jmore restraint, ascendance, masculinity, objectivity,thoughtfulness, endurance, need for achievement, and Situational Antecedentsheterosexuality (Bass, 1967b). Task orientation was higher among men than among Relations-oriented leaders are likely to emerge whenwomen and among those with greater maturity, educa- they are more attentive to pleasing their subordinatestion, status, and technical training. Task·oriented stu- than their superiors and, by definition, when they aredents were more likely to volunteer and to persist at more concerned about the needs of their subordinates.tasks voluntarily ulltil the tasks were completed (Frye Managers who are "under the gun" to produce imme-& Spruill, 1965). They were self·reinforcers (Marston, diate results are more likely to be task oriented and less1964) and more likely to be seen as helpful to others in likely to devote time and energy to their relationships.sensitivity training groups (Bass & Dunteman, 1963). But no specific experiments have been directed toward Relations or interaction orientation, as measured by systematically trying to raise or lower such leaders con·the ORl, was higher among examinees who, according cerns. Brady and Helmich (1982) found, in a survey ofto various personality inventories, were socially depen· chief executive officers (CEOs) and their boards of di-dent on the group, warm, sociable, and in need for affil· rectors that CEOs were more task oriented than rela-iation (Bass & Dunteman, 1963~ Such orientation also tions oriented if their boards were made up of out-correlated with wanting to be controlled by others, to siders. The reverse was true if the boards werebe close to others, to feceive affection from others, to composed of insiders.include others, and to be included with others (Bass, Relations orientation is to be expected in organiza-1967b). Konovsky (1986) completed analyses of the ex-tent to which supervisors of 484 hospital subordinates See Chapter 35.
  5. 5. 476 Leadership and Managementtions, such as the Israeli kibbutzim, communes, or sized teamwork. The leaders of high-performingreligious orders, whose espoused beliefs emphasize pro- groups were also more task oriented than were theviding for members according to their needs. Socioeco- leaders of low·performing groups in that they main·nomic differencies between communities of workers tained high performance standards without being puni-are also likely to be of consequence. Thus. Blood and tive. They were less than were the leaders of low-Hulin (1967) reported that workers in communities in performing groups to be critical of their groups per-which one would expect adherence to middle-class formance and less likely to exert unreasonable pressurenorms (for example. small suburban communities) for better performance.tended to favor a human relations style of supervision. Cause and effect could not be separated in a study ofIn the same way, strong organizational policies support- 112 engineering employees by Jones, James, and Bruniing either a relations or a task orientati&n (or both) par- (1975). But the results are suggestive of the followersticularly coincide with a top management that provides influence on their leaders orientation and behavior, al-role models for lower management and engenders task, though the reverse possibility is also tenable.~ Jones,relations, or both orientations among the individual James, and Bruni obtained correlations of from .41 tomanagers and supervisors. At the same time, the lead- .5; between employees confidence and trust in theirers orientation is also likely to be affected by those be- supervisors and the extent to which their supervisorslow them. were seen to be high in support, emphasis on goals, facilitation of work, and facilitation of interaction. Subordinates and Their Performance. Earlier chap-, as was noted in Chapter 9, Sanford (1951)ters noted that the poor performance of subordinates found, in a survey of Philadelphia residents, that egali-appears to cause much of the observed punitiveness tarians wanted leaders who were warm and generallyof leaders. In the same way, the good performance of supportive, but authoritarians preferred leaders whosubordinates appears to increase leaders tendencies to would serve their special interests. Indirectly, one maybe relations oriented. In a study of routine clerical infer that more relations·oriented leadership would beworkers and their supervisors in a life insurance com- demanded by highly self·oriented followers, by follow-pany. Katz, ~Iaccoby, and Morse (1950) found that su- ers with personal problems, by followers in need of nur-pervisors of high-producing sections were significantly turance, and by followers seeking affection. As shall bemore likely to be employee oriented than production detailed later, the "psychological and job maturity" oforiented. Barrow (1975) showed that increasing the per· ones subordinates dominate the Hersey·Blanchardformance of subordinates in a laboratory setting reo (1977, 1981) prescriptions for determining whethersuited in the leader becoming significantly more sup- leaders should be relations- or task oriented or both inportive. Decreasing the subordinates performance their behavior toward subordinates.caused the leader to become more task oriented. Thisfinding is consistent with Bass, Binder, and Breeds Prior Effectiveness of the Organization. Com-(1967) findings for the performance of a simulated or· monly observed as well as deplored (see. for instance,ganization discussed below. R. Likert, 1977b) is the extent to which human rela· Farris and Lim (1969) showed that if the perform· tions concerns are abandoned when an enterprisesance of groups was good in the past, the groupsleaders profits are seriollsly eroded. In such situations, akin tosubsequently tended to be more relations oriented. a stress response, task orientation is increased at theThe leaders were more sensitive to the needs and feel· expense of relations orientation. Bass, Binder, andings of the members and more trusting and confident Breed (1967) demonstrated this phenomenon in a sim-in the members. They allowed members more freedom ulated budgeting exercise. The concern of decisionand autonomy in their work. Members were encour· makers for the satisfaction and well-being of employeesaged to speak out and were listened to with respect. and the willingness to accept more employee-centeredThe leaders gave recognition for good work, communi· See Kalz, Maccoby, and Morse (1950), whose resulls are menlionedcated clearly, stressed pride in the group, and empha· laler.
  6. 6. Task· versus Relations-Oriented Leadership 477solutions to problems in the areas of safety, labor rela- ineffective peers in technical skills, but they weretions, and management development were strongly in- found to excel in their ability to interact effectively andfluenced by whether the company had just finished a in their interest in people. Similarly, Katzen, Barrett,profitable year. MBA students were given one of three Vann, and Hogan (1968) found that executives whosefirms year·end profit.and.loss statements. One firm roles emphasized administrative, rather than technical,showed a net loss of $86,000; another firms statement performance received higher performance ratings fromshowed that moderate profits had been earned. The their superiors.third firm reported large profits. Three-quarters of the Mann and Dent (1954b) studied supervisors whostudents in the profitable circumstances recommended were rated for promotability by higher.level managers.buying safety equipment. Only half the students in the Highly promotable supervisors were described by theirmoderately profitable enterprise and only 25 percent employees as being good at handling people; approach-of those in the firm that lost money in the previous able; willing to go to bat for employees; letting the em-year were willing to spend the required funds to settle ployees know where they stand; pulling for both thea strike quickly. The goals emphasized in the most company and the workers, rather than either alone; orprofitable situation were the welfare, goodwill, and sat- using general, rather than close, supervision. In turn,isfactory operations of employees. The goals stressed the highly promotable supervisors saw their own supe·in the firm that had experienced a loss were meeting riors as being good at handling people, letting the su-competition and raising profits. pervisors know where they stand, and permitting the supervisors the freedom to make decisions. H. H. Meyer (195 I) observed that effective supervi·General Consequences of Relations-Oriented sors regarded others as individuals with motives, feel·and Task-Oriented Leadership ings, and goals of their own and did not avoid interac· tional stress. Similarly, Kay and Meyer (1962), usingThree kinds of evidence are available. First, the extent both questionnaire and observational methods, foundto whidl relations· and task·oriented leaders are seen that higher rated foremen were less production ori-to be more meritorious or less meritorious by others ented and gave general, rather than close, supervision.can be examined. Second, the differential impact of Likewise, Walker, Guest, and Turner (1956) observedthese orientations on the satisfaction of subordinates that effective supervisors established personal relation·can be reviewed. Third, the differential effects of these ships with employees, stuck up for them, and absorbedorientations on the performance of groups can be de- the pressures from higher levels of authority. In thetailed. Care must be maintained about the validity of same way, A. X Turner (1954) reported that workersthe evidence. Consistently, one sees managers who de· regarded as good supervisors those who did not pres·scribe themselves as more both task· and relations ori- sure their subordinates unnecessarily; were fair,ented in leadership style than their subordinates per- friendly, and understanding; and did not tell their sub·ceive them to be (see, for example, Rees & OKarma, ordinates to quit if they did not like the conditions.1980). Among the 17 Americans on the 1963 Mount Ever· est expedition, all of whom were highly task oriented,Evaluations as a Leader those who were most interaction oriented and highestReports published on correlations of evaluations as a on FIRO·B Expressed Inclusion were rated highest inleader and relations or task orientation generally found leadership. As Lester (1965, p. 45) noted:both orientations to be of positive importance. . .. the results pointed to the importance ... of be· Relations Orientation. Shartle (1934) used inter- ing emotionally responsive, affectionate and warm,views and questionnaires in a comparative study of su- inviting in manner, or placing primary value on thepenisors who were rated as either effective or ineffec- emotional give·and·take in face·to·face relations.tive. Effective supervisors did not differ from their The men reacted negatively to emotional constric·
  7. 7. 478 Leadership and Management tion, to too much emphasis on method, efficiency, by the social distance between the leader and the fol- Nume productivity, and the imposition of high impersonal lowers, whereas Sample and Wilson (1965) found cohe- live imp standards. siveness to be unrelated to such social distance. But satisfacti the majority of reports from both field studies and labo- Hasting~ However, when interaction·orientation scores are ratory experiments indicated that subordinates satis·high at the expense of task·orientation scores, such as North C faction with their leaders was linked to their leaders of Orgawhen ipsative scoring5 is used, task, rather than interac- relations·oriented attitudes and behavior.tion or relations, orientation is likely to correlate with of the <merit as a leader. and su~ Field Studies. Hoppocks (1935) analysis of the early sociated Task Orientation. Rubenowitz (1962) reported that literature on job satisfaction indicated that workers vation tejob-oriented supervisors were regarded by higher man- tended to feel more satisfied when supervisors under- (1919) c(agement as more effective than person·oriented super- stood their problems aild helped them, when needed. were ffilvisors. Shortly afterward, Kelly (1964) found that the In a survey of more than 10,000 managerial, supervi- employetechnical features of executives behavior outweighed sory, and hourly personnel, Ronan (1970) obtained sim- the leadthe effects of personal style. ilar results, as did Roberts, lliles, and Blankenship When According to Dunteman (1966), task orientation, as (1968). ship of rmeasured by the ORI, correlated with promotability Stagner, Flebbe, and Wood (1952) found that railroad both weratings based on 3 days of assessment of 96 supervisors workers were better satisfied when their supervisors tion of(but correlations were negative among the younger, were good at handling grievances and communicating lalion 0temporary supervisors and the journeymen who were with employees. Likewise, Bose (1955) observed that found tso assessed). For both 66 first·level and 27 second·level workers under employee-centered supervisors had behaviosupervisors, task orientation significantly contributed more pride in their groups than those under work·cen· leadersto their ~igh on·the·job performance ratings by "their tered supervisors. Mann and Hoffman (1960) found grievantsupervisors (Dunteman & Bass, 1963). that in two plants, one automated, the other not, em- In a sUI Many other studies, enumerated in Chapter 28, have ployees were more satisfied with supervisors who were (1955) Ishown that leaders who are concerned about the lask considerate of their feelings, recognized good work, supervi~in situations in which such a concern is relevant are were reasonable in their expectations, and stood up for other h;likely to be evaluated highly by others. Furthermore, their subordinates. tions fothe plethora of studies of the need for achievement 6 Starnpolis (1958) showed that the more employees of supelprovide additional evidence of the positive association rated their supervisor as fair, able to handle people, giv- with suof task orientation and success as a leader. ing of credit, ready to discuss problems, and keeping exampl, employees informed, the less the employees expressed with a I a desire for their company to be unionized. Bass and subordiImpact on Subordiftates Satisfaction Mitchell (1976) reported similar results for professional (1973) ~Several investigations focused on the impact on subor- and scientific workers. Illustrative also is the inability, task·oridinates satisfaction of psychological and social close- to date, of the United Auto Workers, to organize the peopleness or distance, a component of relations orientation. highly relations·oriented, Japanese-owned, automobile orientaThe results were mixed. Julian (1964) found that job plants in the United States (Gladstone, 1989). pled wisatisfaction was higher when there was psychological Wager (1965) found that a supportive style of leader- In acloseness between the leader and the led. However, ship assisted the supervisor in fulfilling and satisfying sllmi(1Blau and Scott (1962) and E. P. Shaw (1965) reported the employees role expectations. In an aircraft faclory, cmplo)that the cohesiveness of the group was strengthened where team leaders devoted much of their time to facil- shipy31 itating the work of their team members and attending under;In ipsative scoring, the task score and relations score sum to a fixed to the team members personal problems, indicators oftotal, say IOU. If the task SCOre is 65. then the relations scorc must rnaintebe 35. dissatisfaction, such as absenteeism and turnover, were c1assifi.!See Chapter 10. lower (Mayo & Lombard, 1944). type (a
  8. 8. Task- versus Relations-Oriented Leadership 479 Numerous field studies continue to confirm the posi· or both types (PM). The subordinates of a PM supervi·tive impact of a leaders relations orientation on the sor had a more favorable attitude toward their supervi-satisfaction of subordinates. For example, York and sor than did the subordinates of an !vI·type or P-typeHastings (1985-86) asked 172 employees working in supervisor. Least satisfying supervisors were those who~orth Carolina social services to complete the Survey were pm types. In a bank that had branches in Oki·of Organizations (D. G. Bowers, 1976). At all levels nawa, Misumi and Mannari (1982) surveyed an averageof the assessed maturity of workers, the facilitative of 1,325 subordinates who described th~ir 303 supe-and supportive performance of supervisors was as· riors leadership. The P and M leadership orientationssociated with the subordinates satisfaction and moti· of the supervisors, as well as the subordinates moraleation to work. A review of nursing studies by Maloney (interest in work and satisfaction with supervision)(1979) concluded that people·oriented leaders generally were collected 5 times in 15·month intervals. The suowere more satisfying to their employees. In addition, pervisors were changed in 287 groups but not <in 159employees grievances and turnover were lower when groups. It was found that there was less change in mo-the leaders were seen as relations oriented. rale from interval to interval if the supervisor did not When the socioemotional and task·oriented leader· change. However, the morale of the subordinates roseship of residence hall leaders were measured separately, if the P and M leadership orientation of the supervi·both were linked by :lacDonald (1969) to the satisfac· sors successor was higher than that of the former suotion of students. However, the effects of task orien· pervisor. The previous morale of the subordinates hadtation on subordinates satisfaction have usually been less of an effect on the incoming supervisors leader·found to be somewhat less consistent. Task·relevant ship than vice versa.behavioral measures, which contain element!. of theleaders punitiveness, will generate dissatisfaction, Laboratory EXf1crimcnts. Experiments may providegrievances, and turnover (Schriesheim & Kerr, 1974). additional convincing evidence of the relationship be-In a sun-ey of seeral thousand employees, R. Likert tween a leaders relations orientation and subordinatesiJ955) fuund that job satisfaction decreased asthe satisfaction. As with the field studies, most experi-superviso(s pressure for production increased. On the mental studies concluded that the satisfaction of subor-other hand, it is not uncommon to find positive correIa· dinates was positively associated with the leaders rela·tions for both the task· and relations·oriented behavior tions·oriented behavior. Wischmeier (1955) found thatof supenisors and the satisfaction of their subordinates group·centered, rather than task·centered, discussionswith supervisors. Generally, for nurse supervisors, for resulted in a warm, friendly group atmosphere. T. Gor·example, a strong task orientation that is not coupled don (1955) also found that group·centered discussionwith a high relations orientation results in less satisfied was associated with members sense of belonging, reosubordinates (Maloney, 1979). Gruenfeld and Kassum spect for others, ability to listen to and understand oth·(1973) showed that nurses were satisfied with highly ers, and loss of self·defensiveness. Similarly, Thelentask-oriented supen-isGtS, but only if the supervisors and Wl1itehall (1949) and Schwartz and Gekoski (1960)people orientation was high as well. The strong task reported that follower·oriented leadership enhancedorientation of supervisors was dissatisfying when cou· satisfaction. Likewise, Maier and Danielson (1956)pled with a medium or low orientation to people. reported that an employee·oriented solution to a In a massive undertaking of over two decades, Mi· disciplinmy problem produced greater satisfaction insumi (1985) completed studies of over 150,000 Japanese groups of problem solvers than did one that was boundemployees working in banks, post offices, coal mines, by legalistic restrictions.shipyards, transportation, utilities and manufacturing, Heyns (1948) coached one set of leaders to playa pos·under supervisors with different performance (P) and itive, supportive role that emphasized agreement, mu·maintenance (11) orientations. The supervisors were tualliking, and cooperation. Another set of leaders wasclassified as P-type (above Jhe median in Palone), M· coached to playa negative role in which the leaderstype (above the median in M alone), neither type (pm) overtly displayed a misunderstanding of the members
  9. 9. 480 Leadership and Managementand made no effort to develop their groups cohesive· performance of their groups determined, to a consider·ness. Although the two styles produced no significant able degree, the task- and relations orientation of thedifference in the Quality of the groups decision or the group leaders.members satisfaction, the groups with positive leaders Impact of Relations-Oriented Leadership on Per-exhibited evidence of greater cohesiveness. W. M. Fox(I954) used scenarios to coach leaders in a similarly pos· formance. Pandey (1976) reported that groups led by relations·oriented leaders generated more ideas thanitive relations approach or a "biased, diplomatic persu· did those led by task·oriented leaders. Katz, Maccoby,asive" role. Croups with positively supportive leaders and Morse (1950) and Roberts, Miles, and Blankenshipexhibited higher degrees of cohesiveness and mem- (1968) found that the performance of groups wasbers satisfaction but were slower in solving problems. higher under an employee·oriented style than under aWith a different group of participants, W. M. Fox more disinterested style of supervision. Philipsen(1957) also found that supportive leadership was associ· (1965a, 1965b) also found that human relations leader-ated with the members satisfaction and the groups co· ship correlated positively with group effectiveness. Buthesiveness. in a study of skilled tradesmen, Wison, Beem, and Comrey (1953) established that supervisors of both high· and low·performing shops were described asImpact on the Groups more helpful, sympathetic, consistent, and self·reliantand Members Performance than were those in medium-performing shops.It may be difficult to separate the impact of the leaders Abdel-Halim (1982) showed how much of the memoorientation on the members satisfaction from its im· bers role conflict and role ambiguity that affected theirpact on the members and the groups effectiveness. intrinsic satisfaction with, involvement in, and anxietyTo illustrate, Medalia and Miller (1955) observed that about their jobs was moderated by the support theyhuman relations leadership and employ~es satisfaction received from their supervisor. In the previously citedinteract to influence the groups effectiveness. And al· report by Konovsky (1986), supervisors who werethough both a relations orientation and a task orienta· judged by their 484 subordinates as helpful and emo-tion are generally found to be positively associated with tionally supportive contributed to the subordinatesthe groups productivity, attainment of goals, and fol· commitment to their hospital organization and to thelowers performance, thereare exceptions, as are noted supervisors judged interpersonal effectiveness. In thelater, which points to the possible need for a contino same way, Riegel (1955) found that employees interestgent approach. Some situations may call for more rela- in their companys success increased when their super·tions-oriented leadership and others for more task·ori· visor was seen to help them with their difficulties, toented I~dership; however it may be that in a vast give necessary training and explanations, and to "takemajority of circumstances, strong doses of both types an interest in us and our ideas."of leadership orientation are optimal. Indik, Georgopoulos, and Seashore (1961) studied When positive associations are found, it is usually in· the employees of a transportation company. Their reoferred that the relations orientation or task orientation suIts indicated that high levels of group performanceof the leader resulted in the improved performance of were associated with satisfaction with the supervisorssubordinates. But the reverse may be equally true. Few supportiveness, open communication, mutual under·of the findings have been causal. The previous per- standing, and autonomy of the workers on the job. Asformance of subordinates is as likely to affect the orien· observed in Chapter 21, R. Likert (196Ia, 1967, 1977b)tation of the leader as the leaders orientation is Iikelv concluded, from many surveys, that supportive atti-to influence the subsequent performance of the subor· tudes toward employees, combined with the groupsdinates (Bass, 1965c). Farris and Lim (1969), as was previ· loyalty toward management, were associated with in-ously mentioned, showed that the past good or poor creased productivity and a desire for responsibility by
  10. 10. Task- versus Relations-Oriented Leadership 481the employees. With the introduction of a human rela· Likert (1977a) reported strong associations with the ex-tions approach to management, as well as high per- tent to which supervisors facilitated the work by help-formance goals, long·term gains in productivity were ing with advanced scheduling and offering new ideasachieved. Similarly, Daley (1986) surveyed 340 employ- to solve problems in the job and the extent to whichees of Iowa public agencies and obtained uniformly airplanes that were serviced by the groups were not in·positive associations between their perceptions of rela· volved in accidents and disasters because of opera-tions-oriented, humanistic management practices and tional failures.the employees evaluations of the effec~iveness and reo Effects ofa Combined Task- and Relations Orienta·sponsiveness of their organizations to the public. tion. Considerable theoretical and empirical support Supportive leadership increases the likelihood that has been amassed for the idea that regardless of cir-organizations can police and correct themselves. Near cumstances, the effectiveness of leadership is greatestand ~Iiceli (1986) found that the felt support from their when the leaders are both task oriented and relationsleaders was the most important factor in protecting oriented in attitudes and behavior. Thus, Patchenemployees from retaliation for calling attention to ob- (1962) reported that the leader who maintained high·served wrongdoing. Conversely, the perceived Iikeli· performance norms, encouraged efficiency, and at·hood of suffering retaliation for whistle-blowing about tempted to obtain rewards for followers was likely toobserved wrongdoings was perceived by a random sam· have a high·performing group. However, the mainte-pIe of 8600 federal employees to correlate with the lack nance of high performance standards alone and at-of support from their supervisors and the higher mana- tempting to obtain rewards for followers alone eachgement.These perceptions were realistic. Honest whis· had a negative effect on productivity. Both patterns oftle·blowers wer~ actually more likely to get punished behavior had to be combined to have a positive impactthan were their corrupt senior managers in Samuel on productivity. Pierces Housing and Urban Development Administra-tion Of.I 9R I to 1988 (as of late 19R9). . Numerous other studies and lines of investigation have supported the utility of a combined high task· and Impact of Taslt·Oriented Leadership on Perform- relations·oriented approach to leadership. Thus, Tjos·ance. R. Likert (1955) reported that a survey of several void (1984b) demonstrated, in an experiment with 56thousand workers indicated a tendency for productiv- college students, that the students were most produc·ity to be higher in the presence of higher pressure by tive in completing a subsequent task if they had experi·supen·isors for production. Similarly, Litwin (1968) enced beforehand a leader who nonverbally conveyednoted that experimental groups whose leaders had a warmth and who was directive about what was to bestrong need for achievement were much more produc- done. The experience of the warm leader, along withtive than were those whose leaders had a great need for the absence of direction, was satisfying but the leastaffiliation or power. Qunteman and Bass (1963) studied conducive to subsequent productivity. Similarly, Kli-foremen who had an interaction orientation or a task moski and Hayes (1980) found that the effort, perform·orientation. Groups who worked under task-oriented ance, and satisfaction of 241 assistants in the produc·leaders were more productive than were those under tion department of a large information·processing firminteraction-priented leaders. Likewise, Mann, Indik, was enhanced if the supervising editors were task cen·and Vroom (1963) showed that the productivity of tered in being explicit in their expectations and consist-workers was associated with the supervisors task orien- ent in their demands, as well as supportive of their em-tation. R. Cooper (1966) also demonstrated that first- ployees. In the same way, Daniel (1985) found thatlevel supervisors, whose bosses judged them to be subordinates perceived that they were working in ahigher in "task relevance" tended to have more pro· more productive organization if their managers wereductive and more task·motivated subordinates. concerned both about tasks and about people. For 14 U.S. Navy airplane-maintenance groups, R. Hall and Donnell (1979) completed a survey study
  11. 11. 482 Leadership and Managementof 2,024 subordinates who described their managers Misumi (1985) and Misumi and Peterson (1985) con-attention to the demands of the task and concern for sistently found, in the previously mentioned surveysthe quality of manager-subordinate relationships. The and experiments of 150,000 Japanese employees inmanagers who vere high in both earned high career· business and industry, greater productivity by employ-achievement quotients. (The quotient reflected the ees under PM than under pm supervision, that is, un-speed with which they had climbed their organiza- der managers who were abo~e rather than below thetionalladder.) They were also the most collaborative in median in both performance orientation and mainte·their leadership style. These results were consistent nance orientation.with Blake and Moutons (1964) and J. Halls (1976) In one of these sfudies, P and M were systematicallyfindings for large samples. The moderately successful manipulated for coordinated first-level and second·managers had a low relations orientation but a high level supervision in an experiment with 15 postaltask orientation, while those whose career success was trainees working in trios. The PM·type first·level super-lowest were low in both a task· and a relations orienta- vision generated more productivity than did either Ption. or Malone. Second·level supervision, present only in Erez and Kanfer (1983) argued that the relations ori· the form of written instructions to the subjects fromentation implied in allowing subjects to participate in the second level, had the same effects. although withgoal setting enhanced the task-oriented impetus for less statistical significance. For 215 of 500 groups ofmore goal setting than did assigning goals to subjects coal miners. when the second-level supervisor was ac·wit....out pcrmitting them to participate in ,ctting the !ually present, the PM pattern in both the first and sec·goals. Erez, Earley, and Hulin (1985) obtained experi· ond levels of supervision was most typical for the high-mental evidence to show that such participation in· producing groups. For 186 working groups of about 10creased acceptance of the goals and hence increased employees each, involving a total of 2,257 workers in a productivity, although Erez (1986) found that the orga- Mitsubishi shipyard, evaluations of group meetingsnizational culture from which the participants were were most positive under PM-type leaders (evaluationdrawn affected the need for such participation. Sub· mean = 17.5). followed by M-type (mean = 16.4), p. jects from the Israeli private sector did better with as· type (mean = 153), and pm-type (mean = 14.5)signed goals; subjects from the kibbutz sector did bet· leaders.ter with group participation in setting goals. The rated performance of 92 squads in a bearing As described earlier in discussing the utility of partic- manufacturing firm was most often high if the squadsipation, Locke, Latham, and Erezs (1987) critical ex- were under PM leadership and least often if under pmperiment tried to understand why, in their respective leadership. The results for ratings above the medianinvestigative efforts and using the same standardized, for P alone or above the median for M alone were inexperiment.!!1 conditions, assigning goals to subjects, between. The same pattern emerged in a tire manufac-generated more productivity in the United States (La- turing firm, where. again, the success or failure rate oftham & Steele, 1983), while allowing the subjects to 8B9 project managers was strongly associated with theirparticipate in goal setting generated more productivity PM, P, M, or pm style of leadership, as shown in Tablein Israel (Erez & Arad, 1986). The one difference be- 23.1. The success rate was clearly highest (52 percent)tween the U.S. and Israeli situations that turned out to and the failure rate was clearly lowest (5 percent) withaccount for the highly significant difference in produc· the combined PM style.tivit} was that the Israeli experimenter was curt andunsupportive in giving instructions, but the U.S. ex-perimenter was friendly and supportive. The friendly, Negative Evidence. A number of exceptions to thesupportive experimenters instructions facilitated the positive effects of task or relations orientation on pro-subjects accepTance of the assigned goal without their ductivity have been reported, particularly in short·participating in setting the goals. range analyses. With reference to innovation, Andrews
  12. 12. Task- versus Relations-Oriented Leadership 483Table 23.1 Relation of Types of Leadership to the Success or Failure of 889 Japanese~Ianagers of Engineering Projects Percentage· Number of Type Cases Success FailureAbo·e the median on both performance (P) and maintenance (M) 271 52 5 orientations.bove the median on Palone 192 26 17Abo·e the median on Malone 200 16 30Below the median on both P and M 220 6 47SOlRCE: Adapted from Misumi (198f, p. 89).and Farris (1967) found no evidence that innovation dren performed equally well under "cold" or "warm"was higher when supervisors of scientific personnel leadership.were high in both task and human relations functions.Human relations skills had little moderating effect onthe generally positive relationships between the lead- Blake and Moutons Grid Theory®ers carrying out task functions and innovation. Themost innovation occurred under supervisors who were Blake and Mouton (1964) are the best·known modelneither high nor low in their attention to human rela- builders who prescribe the integration of both task· andtions, regardless of the task functions that were com· relations orientations as the one best way to achievepletetl. effective leadership. Their managerial grid (see Figure Lunclquists (1957) results indicated that regardless 23.1) is based on the concept tnat managers and leadersoi whether supervisors were worker oriented, the sheer vary from I to 9 in their concern for people (the verticalfrequency of their interaction with workers increased axis of the grid) and from 1 to 9 in their concern fortheir effectiveness. Weitz and Nuckols (1953) found production (the horizontal axis). The measurement ofthat supervisors scores on a test measuring human reo these concerns is based on a managers endorsementlations orientation were not related to the productivity of statements ·about management assumptions and be-of the group or the turnover of personnel. MacKinney, liefs. But these concerns are interactive rather than in-Kavanagh, Wolins, and Rapparlie (1970) found that dependent. They are manifested in the five stylesboth production-oriented and employee-oriented man- shown on the grid:agement were unrelated to the satisfaction of employ- . ~ 9,1: Authority-Obedience Management. The lead-ees. Carp, Vltola, and McLanathan (1963) showed thatsupervisors of effective postal teams maintained their ers maximum concern for production (9) issocial distance from subordinates, an attitude that reo combined with a minimum concern for peopleduced the surfacing of emotional problems. (I). "Dictating to subordinates what they In a study of simulated management groups, Kaczka should do and how they should do it, the leaderand Kirk (1967) established that the profitability of concentrates on maximizing production."teams was associated with relations-oriented leader- 1,9: "Country Club" Management. The leadership. But this type of leadership also resulted in less shows a minimum concern for production (I)pressure to accomplish tasks and less cohesiveness in but a maximum concern for people (9). "Eventhe groups. Finally, C. A. Dawson (1969), studying the at the expense of achieving results, fosteringachievement of schoolchildren, observed that the chil- good feelings gets primary attention."
  13. 13. 484 Leadership and ManagementFigure 23.1. The Managerial Grid-High 9 I I J,9 I Country Club Management I 1 9 ,9 1 Team Management I - Thoughtful attention to needs Work accomplishment is from - of people for satisfying relationships committed people; interdependence 8 leads to a comfortable, I through a "common - - friendly organization atmosphere I stake" in organization purpose _ and work tempo. leads to relationships of trust 7 and respect. 6 5,5~ Organization Man Management~ ~ Adequate organization performance-" S is possible throul!h balancing ;- the necessity to get out ~ work with maintaining moralej 4 of people at a satisfactory level. 1,1 9,1 Impoverished Management Authority·Obedience E;<ertion of minimum efiort to Effici-.:ncy in operations results z .- ::fl:~:~:fb;T";~;Or - get required work done is from arranging conditions of work in such a way that human _ I elements interfere to a minimu, degree. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Low Concern for Production HighSOLRCE: The Managtria/ Grid fIgUre from The Managerial Grid III: The Key 10 Leadership Excellence, byRobert R. lllake and Jane Sryg/ey Mouton (Houston: Gulf Publishing Compan~), Copyright © J985, p. IZ.Reproduced by permission. I,l: Impoverished Management. The leader has a concerns of production and people and the minimum concern for both production and two are kept in logic·tight compartments. Pa· people and puts forth only the least effort reo ternalism occurs, for example, when the leader q1:iired to remain in the organization. expresses a strong concern for the well-being 5,5: "Organization Man" Management. The leader of followers but does not consider their contri· goes along to get along, which results in con· butions to productivity, although he or she has formity to the status quo. an equally strong concern for production 9,9: Team JJanagement. The leader integrates the (Blake and Mouton, 1964, p. 10, in paraphase). concern for production and the concern for They care as fathers (or mothers) for depen- people at a high level; is goal centered; and dent subordinates from whom they expect un· seeks results through the participation, in· conditional loyalty. volvement, and commitment of all those who can contribute. This style can take the form of Opportunistic leaders use several styles interchange· paternalism if the leader fails to integrate the ably, depending on the persons with whom they are
  14. 14. Task- versus Relations-Oriented Leadership 485dealing. Sometimes leaders masquerade as 9,9s when style of team-management orientation characterizedthey really are paternalists or opportunists hiding be· the leadership of the twentieth century U.S. presidentshind facades. who had performed with greatness, in contrast to those The leaders dominant style is likely to be backed up who had not. This style was inferred from contempo-by other styles. Thus, for instance, the 1.9 leader may rary writings about the presidents different ways of de-begin a meeting in a casual, friendly way but quickly cision making, exercising initiatives; analyzing prob-become the tough. no-nonsense, 9,1, which is his or her lems. taking advocacy roles, dealing with conflictsdominant style (Blake & ~Iouton, 1985c). between themselves and their subordinates, and lIsing Team leadership (9.9) is what is prescribed. It is at- critiques to increase their effectiveness in achieving re-tained by behavioral science principles that involve sults with and through subordinates.participation, openness, trust and respect. involvementand commitmf..,.t, open confrontation to resolve con-flicts. consenSllS, the synergistic utilization of the hu- Situational Contingenciesman resources represented by the leader and followers, Affecting Outcomesmutually determined management by objectives, mu-tual support, and change and development through Blake and ~Iouton did not leave much room for excep-feedback (Blake & Mouton, 198Ia). tions. Nevertheless, a substantial number of investiga- .ccording to a stUdy reported by Blake and ~Iouton tions of the impact of task- and relations orientation(11)S~c), prior tC a seminar, 68 percent of the managers have been mixed or negative. Explanations for suchsaw themselves as 9,9; 10 percent. as 9,1; 19 percent, findings have heen sought in situational ;,5; and 2-3 perccnt, as 1,9 or 1,1. After a scminar These situational contingencies need to be examinedon the subject, a modal 41 percent admitted to being for their modcrating effects on the impact of relations- ;.; amI another 36 percent saw themselves as 9,1. Only imd task·oriented leadership ·on the satisfaction and 16 pe(cent now believed they were 9,9. Blake and ~I()u· productivity of followers. For instance, Miner (1982a, ton thought that these changes in results were indica- 1982h) suggested that the high-task-high·relations lead- tie of the self-deception that occurs if understanding ership orientation is most likely to be effective whenis impaired and feedback is not provided. organizations arc a mix of systems of hierarchies and :kcording to Blake and ~Iouton (1978), a 9,9 orienta· groups. The task orientation fits the hierarchies: the tion has consistently proved to contribute positively to relations orientation fits the groups.a ariety of performance criteria in organizational dc- An illustration of a moderated result was the upward- clopment studies. In one of these studies, two influence tactics used by suhordinates who were sub- matched subsidiaries of the same company were in- jected to task- or people·centered leadership, according DIved in a pre-post comparison over a ten-year.period. ~ to Delugas (1987b) study of 48 faculty members in aOne subsidiary engaged in an extensive organizational school of higher education. Deluga found that in thedevelopment progmm that stressed 9,9 management; faculty members first attempt to influence their supe- the other was not involved in any compmable program. riors, only the sllperiors relations orientation WclS ofThe experimental subsidiary increased its profitability consequence. The faculty members said they were lessby 400 percent over the matched control. likely to bargain or appeal to a higher authority if their In a study of 716 managers from a single firm, Blake superiors were more people centered. But if they failedand ~Iouton (1964) found that 9.9-oriented managers to influence their superiors in their first attempt. in(after correcting for age differences) were more likely their second attempt. it WilS the task orientation of the than were those with other dominant styles to advance leaders that WclS important. Here, the faculty members further in their careers. J. Hall (1976) replicated these said they would be more likely to try friendliness, bar- findings with an independent sample for 731 managers gaining, assertiveness, appeals to a higher authority, from a variety of companies. and forming coalitions, the more they thought their su- Blake and ~Iouton (1985b) determined that the 9,9 perior was task centered.
  15. 15. 486 Leadership and Management The Subordinate as a Moderator (1971) also studied the effects of leadership style on the performance of students who had a high or low need Although relations·oriented leadership was expected to to achieve. Achievement·oriented students performed generate more satisfaction among subordinates, mod· best under a leader who was high in both a P orienta. crating effects were seen in a number of investigations. tion and an M orientation. In groups whose members In a study of community hospitals, F. C. Mann (1965) had a low need to achieve, the performance was best observed that the satisfaction of the nurses was related under a P·type leader. to the human relations skills of their supervisors, but the satisfaction of the nursing supervisors was related Constraints and Goals as Moderators to the administrative skills of their superiors. At the Several studies obtained results suggesting that the same time, the satisfaction of the hospital technicians style of supervision interacted with situational vari· was related to their supervisors technical and human abies to influence productivity and satisfaction with relations skills. T.1nnenbaum and Allport (1956) studied the job. For example, Lundquist (1957) reported that two departments of women workers. One department foremen who arc worker oriented produce better reo was given more responsibility and authority for work suits in small than in large groups. In an Indian study of and for decisions about the work and one department officers in central government departments, Srivastava emphasized top·down line authority. A personality test and Kumar (1984) demonstrated that high task and was administered initially and scored as to the suitabil· high relationship styles of leadership both contributed ity of the workers personality to the situation in which to the effectiveness and adaptability of the middle- they worked. One year later, an attitude test was ad· level officers; however, they did not do so for the jun- mini~tered. The results of the test revealed that signifi- ior·level officers. :-.Jealey and Blood (1968) showed that cantly more suited than unsuited workers in the situa· among nurses in a Veterans Administration hospital, tion with more authority and responsibility wanted the task·oriented first-level supervisors received higher per· situation to continue, but suited and unsuited workers formance.appraisals, but it was the people·oriented sec· did not differ in their attitudes toward the program if ond·level supervisors who received such higher per· they had not been given authority and responsibility. formance appraisals. Although the subordinates job In another large·scale field study, Seashore (1954) satisfaction was correlated significantly at both levels found that supportive leadership with cohesive work with the supervisors people orientation, task orienta· groups paid off in higher productivity. However, the tion contributed to the nurses job satisfaction at the same group cohesiveness also resulted in lower produc· first but not at the second level of supervision. tivity when the groups supervisors were unsupportive. The followers need for achievement was seen by a Tile Task as a Moderator number of investigators to make a difference in the way the followers reacted to particular styles of leader· V. W. Burke (1965) found that a groups performance....ship. W. W. Burke (1965) discovered that followers with of a coding task was completed more effectively under a high need to achieve who were led by socially close a production-oriented leader, but the completion of a leaders rated their situation as more tense than did decision task was carried out more effectively under a those with a high need to achieve who were under so· relations-oriented leader. Weed, Mitchell, and Moffitt cially distant leaders. At the same time, followers with (1976), among others, found that it was necessary to a low need to achieve who were led by socially close take the tasks into account to uncover the moderating leaders rated their situation as more tense than did fol· of the linkage between a leaders relations orientation lowers with a high need to achieve who were led by and the subordinates satisfaction as a consequence of socially distant leaders. Followers with a high need to the subordinates personality and orientation. Overall, achieve rated socially close leaders high in authoritar· they studied the effects of task· versus relations orien· ianism. while those with a low need to achieve did the tation on a groups performance and satisfaction with same for socially distant leaders. Misumi and Seki supervision as a function of the subordinates person-
  16. 16. Task- versus Relations-Oriented Leadership 487ality and orientation. They compared leaders who able and unfavorable relations ceased at the end ofscored high in human relations orientation and high in three weeks, when minor changes in work were insti-task orientation, low in human relations orientation tuted. Table 23.2 shows the percentage of assembledand low in task orientation, low in human relations ori- units requiring repair during each phase of the experi-entation and high in task orientation, an.d high in hu- ment. When the employees continued to work on oldman relations orientation and low in task orientation. and familiar tasks, the unfavorable supervision hadEach leader worked with subordinates who were high only slight effects on their performance. But when aor low in dogmatism. Subordinates varied in their task- changeover occurred that required work on new, unfa-and relations orientations, as well. Regardless of their miliar tasks, the repair rates of the unfavored grouppersonality and orientations, the subordinates were sig- jumped much higher than did those of the favorednificantly more satisfied with leadership behavior that group. Equally important, although the favored groupwas high in human relations orientation. But Weed, rapidly returned to its normal repair record by the endMitchell, and Moffitt had also varied the ambiguity and of the third week after the changeover, the unfavoreddifficulty of the tasks. The interacting effects of the group continued to exhibit arepair rate that was threeleadership style-relations: or task oriented-and the times worse than what had been its normal record be-subordinates relations· or task orientation were strong- fore the onset of the unfavorable supervisory relations.est on difficult and ambiguous rather than clear" and Unlike the results of surveys, this experiment demon-easy tasks. That is, the compatibility of the leaders and strated that unfavorable supervisory human relationsfollowers personality made a difference only if the task cause decrements in performance primarily when newwas difficult and ambiguous. learning is required, not when accustomed tasks are Wofford (1971) obtained results indicating that are· performed.lations·orient~d manager is likely to be more effectivein terms of the productivity and morale of the group Management Functions as Moderatorsled in Simple, centralized, structured operations.Schachter, Festinger, Willerman, and Hyman (1961) Woodward (1958) reported that friendly supervisorsgenerated somewhat different and more convincing were rated as relatively more effective in service de-evidence in an experiment with work groups who were partments but relatively less effective in production de-matched in age, productivity, seniority, and disciplinary partments. Consistent with this finding, B. Schneiderrecords. For three weeks, managers were friendly and (1973) noted that in social service agencies, supervisorshelpful to the favored group which they praised; they set examples of how they expected their subordinateswere threatening, reproving, and deliberately annoying to relate to clients of the agencies. Satisfied clients co-in their demands on the unfavored group. The favor· incided with the occurrence of friendly, concerned, suo ~Table 73.2 Quality of Work before and after the Changeover of Work Groups that WereSubjected to Favored and Unfavored Supervisory Treatment Percentage of Assembled Vnits Requiring Repair Phase of the Experiment Favored Croup Vnfavored CroupDuring the first week of contrived disturbance 10.6 11.8During the second two weeks of contrived disturbance 11.7 14.7The first week after the changeover 2.l 31.4The second week after the changeover 13.8 28.0The third and fourth weeks mter the changeover 11.6 29.0SOURCE: Schachter. Willerman. Fcslingcr. and Hyman (1961. p. 206).
  17. 17. 488 Leadership and Management pervisory relations with subordinates. Schneider also but has received little research support; the Fiedler found that good customer relations with a bank reo contingency model has been more widely researched.fleeted the good relations of the bank tellers with their than applied. Both models remain highly controversial. superiors. Relations·oriented supervision thus would seem to be particularly indicated in service operations. The Hersey-Blanchard The manager and the coach of English football Situational Leadership Model teams differ greatly in function. The manager has little continuous contact with the players, while the coach Basis maintains a high degree of contact. Cooper and Payne (1967) found a correlation of .72 between the task ori· The Hersey and Blanchard (1969a) situational leader- entation of the team coach and the success of the ship model was built on propositions that were based teams in winning games, but the same correlation was ·on Hersey and Blanchards understanding of prior em-close to zero for managers. pirical research. These propositions "ere as follows: 1. Leadership styles vary considerably from leader toInterrelations with Other Leadership Behaviors leader (Stogdill & Coons, 1957).as Moderators 2. Some leaders behavior primarily involves initiat·The effects of other types of behavior by the leader ing structure to accomplish tasks, other leadersmoderate the impact of the leaders task· or relations behave to build and maintain good personal rela-orientation. Thus, Larkin (1975) showed that clemen· tionships, and still others do both or do neithertary school teachers who were task oriented in their (Halpin, 1956a).behavior created high morale among pupils, regardless 3. The most effective behavioral style of leaders isof how much they also resorted to power. But teachers one that varies with the situation (Fiedler, 1967a;whose task·oriented behavior was low and who used Korman, 1~66).power did generale rebellious pupils. Among supervi· 4. The best attitudinal style is a high task· and a highsors of technical personnel, participative approaches relations orientation (Blake & Mouton, 1964).(the provision of freedom) resulted in the most innova· 5. The job and psychological maturity of the follow·tion if the supervisors were low in a task· or a human ers is most crucial in determining which behav·relations orientation (Andrews & Farris, 1967). In an ioral style of leaders will result in the most effec·experiment with small groups of ROTC students, An· tiveness (Argyris, 1962).derson and Fiedler (1964) found that those under task· 6. llalurity relates to the stage in a groups life cycleoriented leaders were most productive and satisfied or to the previous education and training of thewhen the leaders were participative, but the satisfac· followers.tion Qf students was greater when relations·orientedleaders were directive. Similarly, Pandey (1976) showed Prescriptionsthat the behavior and effectiveness of relations· andtask·oriented leaders of discussion groups depended on According to Hersey and Blanchard (1969a, 1969b,whether the leaders were appointed, elected, or roo 1982a) a manager should be task oriented and tell ortated, since the elected and rotated leaders tended to sell subordinates on what to do or a manager shouldbe more participative than did the appointed leaders. be relations oriented and participate; with subor- A number of models of situational or contingent dinates in joint decision making or delegate the deci-leadership have been constructed to provide advice toleaders on when they should be task oriented and .-s defined in the last chapter, pdrlicipation (italicized) rerers only tohence directive and when they should be relations ori· sharing in the decision process. Participation (romanized) includes con· sulting. sharing. and delegating. D,rection (italicized) refers only to giv.ented ana hence participative. The Hersey·B1anchard ing orders with or without explanation. Direction (romanized) indudessituational leadership model has been widely applied ordering. persuading (selling). and manipulating.
  18. 18. lask- versus Relations-Oriented Leadership 489sion to them depending on the subordinates task·rele· for it best matches the requirements of the particularvant maturity-their job maturity (capacity, ability, situation according to the model. The next best answereducation, and experience) and their psychological ma- is A, to be participative, and is scored + 1 for flexibility.turity (motivation, self·esteem, confidence, and willing- It is a moderately adaptive leadership response, low inness to do a good job). The maturity levels manifest task orientation and high in relations orientation. Thethemselves in the subordinates performance of their next best answer, D, to be persuasive, isscored -1 forjobs. Newly appointed inexperienced employees on a flexibility; it is a response that is high in task· and highjob seek task-oriented direction from their superiors; in relations orientation. Finally, the worst and least flex·they should be told what to do. As their "life cycle" on ible answer is B, a highly directive, high task-low rela-the job continues and their experience increases, they tions response; it is scored - 2 for flexibility.have to be sold to continue their performance. Later, Subordinates and colleagues can also complete therelations orientation and participation become most ef· form, indicating what they believe the focal managerficacious with the subordinates further development, would do; their responses can provide useful feedbackto engage both their knowledge and their maturation. to the focal leader (Hersey & Blanchard, 1981).Finally, fully mature subordinates work best when the A curvilinear relationship between a leaders task-leaders delegate what needs to be done. The most ef- and relations orientation and the subordinates matu·fective leadership is conceived to depend on whether rity was postulated by Hersey and Blanchard (1977) asthe leaders task·oriented or relations·oriented behav· displayed in Figure 23.3. Unwilling and unable subordi·ior matches the subordinates maturity. nates should be told what to do; willing but unable sub· LASlor LEAD. The Leader Adaptability and Style ordinates should be sold; unwilling but able subordi· nates should participate; and willing and able subordi·Imentory (L:SI)-Iater renamed the Leadership Ef· nates should be delegated assignments.fectiveness and Adaptability Description (LEAD)-prOidlS brief vignettes (Hersey & Blanchard, 1974) of Subordinates Maturity12 situations, each with 4 alternatives, as shown in Fig·ure 23.2. Maturity is seen at four levels. Each level involves a For example, in situation 4, you supervise a group different combination of attention to relations and taskwith a fine rccord of accomplishment whose members as in table below.respect the need for change. You indicate from among Positive Evidencefour choices what supervisory action you would take todeal with the problem. One alternative, under answer Despite problems with the model, some supportive em·C, is to delegate by allowing the group to work out the pirical evidence has emerged for it along with contrarysolution itself. This delegation is leadership behavior findings. Hersey, Angelini, and Carakushansky (1982)that is low in task orieQ!ation and low in relations orien· obtained support for the model as an approach to im·tation. The response adds 2 points to your self·rated prove learning. The participants in their study were 60delegation score. It also adds to your flexibility score, managers who attended a management training semi· Leaders Behl1ior Should Be Oriented TOIIl1rd Subordinates I.eId Prescribed Leadership of ,Ia/uri/r Rell1/iolls Task Behl1;or I. Unable-unwilling Low High Telling 2. Unable-jlling High High Selling 3. :ble·unwilling High Low Participating -I. :ble·willing I,ow Low Delegating