{"id":693,"date":"2019-04-17T19:51:02","date_gmt":"2019-04-17T19:51:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-organizationalbehavior\/?post_type=chapter&#038;p=693"},"modified":"2024-04-24T22:45:26","modified_gmt":"2024-04-24T22:45:26","slug":"behavioral-approach","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-organizationalbehavior\/chapter\/behavioral-approach\/","title":{"raw":"Behavioral Approach","rendered":"Behavioral Approach"},"content":{"raw":"<div class=\"textbox learning-objectives\">\r\n<h3>Learning Outcomes<\/h3>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Describe the behavioral approach<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\nIf the answer isn\u2019t in the traits a leader exhibits, perhaps it lies in what a leader does. Behavioral theories of leadership suggest that specific behaviors differentiate leaders from nonleaders. The implications for this idea are pretty big. Think about it. The trait approach can help you pick out a leader, or predict that an individual might step up to leadership. The behavioral approach suggests that leaders can be trained.\r\n\r\nLet\u2019s head back to the 1940s, around the time that Stogdill sent leadership studies off in a different direction, and look at the emergence of a few different instances of behavioral leadership research.\r\n<h2>The Ohio State University Studies<\/h2>\r\nBack in the late 1940s, research began at The Ohio State University to identify independent dimensions of leader behavior.[footnote]Stogdill, R and A. E. Coons, Leader Behavior: <em>Its Description and Measuremen<\/em>t, 1951[\/footnote] The team began with a list of over a thousand different dimensions and eventually narrowed the list to two leadership behaviors as they were described by employees. Those behaviors were task focused and people focused.\r\n\r\nThose leaders that are concerned with the task are engaging in behaviors called initiation of structure. This doesn\u2019t mean that they don\u2019t care about people\u2014it means that they approach leadership from the task point of view. They organize and define the task so that followers can achieve the goal. For instance, a CEO might want to acquire a new company for a conglomerate. In the initiation of structure framework, the CEO will bring in his or her senior staff and start to direct them as to how and when he or she believes the work should be done.\r\n\r\nAlternatively, consideration is a leadership behavior aimed at creating mutual trust and respect with their followers. An example of consideration might be a leader who, in a time of change and turmoil in an organization, walks the floor of the assembly plant to see how workers are faring, or meets with the his team to determine if they need extra support.\r\n\r\nExtensive research showed that leaders who rated high in both initiation of structure and consideration (a \u201chigh-high\u201d) were more likely to achieve high employee performance and satisfaction more frequently than those that scored high in only one of the two categories, or low in both categories. However, \u201chigh-high\u201d scoring did not always result in positive consequences. Those leaders that scored high in initiation of structure often experienced higher levels of grievances, absenteeism and turnover. Others found that high consideration scores for a leader resulted in lower performance evaluation scores from that leader\u2019s own manager.\r\n\r\nThe Ohio State team suggested that \u201chigh-high\u201d generally resulted in positive outcomes but there were enough exceptions to indicate that situational factors also needed to be considered.\r\n<h2>The University of Michigan Studies<\/h2>\r\nStudies at University of Michigan were conducted around the same time the Ohio State research was going on, and they had similar research objectives.[footnote] Kahn, R and D. Katz. \u201cLeadership Practices in Relation to Productivity and Morale,\u201d <em>Group Dynamics: Research and Theory,<\/em> 1960[\/footnote] The University of Michigan team wanted to locate behavioral characteristics of leaders that appeared to be related to measures of performance effectiveness.\r\n\r\nThe University of Michigan team also came up with two dimensions of leadership behavior. They labeled them employee-oriented and production oriented.\r\n\r\nEmployee-oriented leaders emphasized interpersonal relations. They took a personal interest in the needs of employees and embraced individual differences among members. The production-oriented leaders tended to emphasize the technical or task aspects of the job. Their main concern was accomplishing objectives and the group members were just a means to reach that goal.\r\n\r\nThe University of Michigan team concluded that employee-oriented leaders were associated with higher group productivity and higher job satisfaction, and production-oriented leaders tended to score low in both those areas.\r\n<h2>Blake and Mouton\u2019s Managerial Grid<\/h2>\r\nIn 1964, researchers Robert Blake and Jane Moutin introduced their managerial grid as a graphic portrayal of a two-dimensional view of leadership.[footnote] Blake, R. R. and J. S. Mouton. <em>The Managerial Grid<\/em>. 1964[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nLike the Ohio State and University of Michigan studies, Blake and Mouton concentrated on concern for production and concern for people. They scored each of those areas on a scale of 1 (low) to 9 (high) to create 81 different positions in which the leader\u2019s style might fall. The result was five different types of behavioral styles.\r\n\r\n<img class=\"aligncenter wp-image-708\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4052\/2019\/04\/17194934\/ManagerialGrid.jpg\" alt=\"Blake and Mouton\u2019s Managerial Grid. The x-axis has concern for production, rated from low (one) to high (nine). The y-axis has concern for people, rated from low (one) to high (nine). There are five types of management on the grid. Indifferent management has low concern for production and low concern for people. Accommodating management has low concern for production and high concern for people. Dictatorial management has high concern for production and low concern for people. Sound management has high concern for production and high concern for people.\" width=\"650\" height=\"494\" \/>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>In the <strong>accommodating management style<\/strong>, leaders yield and comply. They pay attention to the comfort of the employees in hopes that they\u2019ll be productive. This style often results in happy employees but is not necessarily productive.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>In the <strong>indifferent management style<\/strong>, leaders evade and elude. They don\u2019t give much consideration to people or production, and try to fly under the radar a bit without getting into trouble.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>In the <strong>sound management style<\/strong>, leaders contribute and commit. They pay high attention to both people and production and encourage teamwork and commitment. It\u2019s very Theory Y!<\/li>\r\n \t<li>In the <strong>dictatorial management style<\/strong>, leaders control and dominate. They pay attention to production but not to people, and use rules and punishment to achieve goals. It\u2019s very Theory X!<\/li>\r\n \t<li>In the <strong>status quo management style<\/strong>, leaders balance and compromise. They are middle-of-the-road, and as a result, people needs and production needs aren\u2019t necessarily met.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nManagers performed best when they scored in the \u201csound\u201d area. But the grid offered better framework for conceptualizing leadership style rather than presenting any new information in clarifying leadership behaviors, because there\u2019s very little substantive evidence to support the conclusion that a sound style is most effective in all situations.\r\n<h2>The Scandinavian Studies<\/h2>\r\nWe\u2019re going to fast forward a few years to the 1990s, when Scandinavian researchers Ekvall and Arvonen began to reassess the idea that there were only two dimensions that captured the essence of leadership behavior.[footnote]Ekvall, G and J. Arvonen, \u201cChange-Centered Leadership: An Extension of the Two-Dimensional Model,\u201d <em>Scandinavian Journal of Management<\/em>, 1991. M. Lindell and G. Rosenqvist, \u201cIs there a Third Management Style?\u201d <em>Finnish Journal of Business Economics 3<\/em>, 1992. M. Lindell and G. Rosenqvist, \u201cManagement Behavior Dimensions and Development Orientation,\u201d <em>Leadership Quarterly<\/em>, 1992.[\/footnote] In a changing world, they decided, leaders would exhibit development-oriented behavior. By exhibiting development-oriented behavior, these leaders would value experimentation, seek out new ideas and generate and implement change.\r\n\r\nIn their review of the Ohio State studies, Ekvall and Arvonen found that the researchers had identified behaviors such as \u201cpushes new ways of doing things\u201d and \u201cencourages employees to do new things,\u201d but those items didn\u2019t explain much about leadership in 1940s, when those behaviors didn\u2019t have as great an impact. Their studies indicate that just concentrating on two different dimensions of behavior may not be adequate to capture leadership in the twenty-first century.\r\n<div class=\"textbox tryit\">\r\n<h3>PRactice Question<\/h3>\r\nhttps:\/\/assess.lumenlearning.com\/practice\/9a26c482-cd69-4475-b24d-6e24d9c9d462\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\nBehavioral theories had modest success in identifying consistent relationships between leadership behavior and group performance. But none of these consider situation as a factor. Would Ralph Nader have been as successful a consumer activist if he\u2019d been in Nicaragua and not the United States? Would Franklin Delano Roosevelt have been as successful leading the nation through the Revolutionary or the Civil Wars? None of these behavioral theories could clarify these situational differences. So, as we continued to grow in our theories of leadership, we started to look at contingency theories\u2014theories that considered the leader <em>and<\/em> the situation.","rendered":"<div class=\"textbox learning-objectives\">\n<h3>Learning Outcomes<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Describe the behavioral approach<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<p>If the answer isn\u2019t in the traits a leader exhibits, perhaps it lies in what a leader does. Behavioral theories of leadership suggest that specific behaviors differentiate leaders from nonleaders. The implications for this idea are pretty big. Think about it. The trait approach can help you pick out a leader, or predict that an individual might step up to leadership. The behavioral approach suggests that leaders can be trained.<\/p>\n<p>Let\u2019s head back to the 1940s, around the time that Stogdill sent leadership studies off in a different direction, and look at the emergence of a few different instances of behavioral leadership research.<\/p>\n<h2>The Ohio State University Studies<\/h2>\n<p>Back in the late 1940s, research began at The Ohio State University to identify independent dimensions of leader behavior.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Stogdill, R and A. E. Coons, Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement, 1951\" id=\"return-footnote-693-1\" href=\"#footnote-693-1\" aria-label=\"Footnote 1\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[1]<\/sup><\/a> The team began with a list of over a thousand different dimensions and eventually narrowed the list to two leadership behaviors as they were described by employees. Those behaviors were task focused and people focused.<\/p>\n<p>Those leaders that are concerned with the task are engaging in behaviors called initiation of structure. This doesn\u2019t mean that they don\u2019t care about people\u2014it means that they approach leadership from the task point of view. They organize and define the task so that followers can achieve the goal. For instance, a CEO might want to acquire a new company for a conglomerate. In the initiation of structure framework, the CEO will bring in his or her senior staff and start to direct them as to how and when he or she believes the work should be done.<\/p>\n<p>Alternatively, consideration is a leadership behavior aimed at creating mutual trust and respect with their followers. An example of consideration might be a leader who, in a time of change and turmoil in an organization, walks the floor of the assembly plant to see how workers are faring, or meets with the his team to determine if they need extra support.<\/p>\n<p>Extensive research showed that leaders who rated high in both initiation of structure and consideration (a \u201chigh-high\u201d) were more likely to achieve high employee performance and satisfaction more frequently than those that scored high in only one of the two categories, or low in both categories. However, \u201chigh-high\u201d scoring did not always result in positive consequences. Those leaders that scored high in initiation of structure often experienced higher levels of grievances, absenteeism and turnover. Others found that high consideration scores for a leader resulted in lower performance evaluation scores from that leader\u2019s own manager.<\/p>\n<p>The Ohio State team suggested that \u201chigh-high\u201d generally resulted in positive outcomes but there were enough exceptions to indicate that situational factors also needed to be considered.<\/p>\n<h2>The University of Michigan Studies<\/h2>\n<p>Studies at University of Michigan were conducted around the same time the Ohio State research was going on, and they had similar research objectives.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Kahn, R and D. Katz. \u201cLeadership Practices in Relation to Productivity and Morale,\u201d Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, 1960\" id=\"return-footnote-693-2\" href=\"#footnote-693-2\" aria-label=\"Footnote 2\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[2]<\/sup><\/a> The University of Michigan team wanted to locate behavioral characteristics of leaders that appeared to be related to measures of performance effectiveness.<\/p>\n<p>The University of Michigan team also came up with two dimensions of leadership behavior. They labeled them employee-oriented and production oriented.<\/p>\n<p>Employee-oriented leaders emphasized interpersonal relations. They took a personal interest in the needs of employees and embraced individual differences among members. The production-oriented leaders tended to emphasize the technical or task aspects of the job. Their main concern was accomplishing objectives and the group members were just a means to reach that goal.<\/p>\n<p>The University of Michigan team concluded that employee-oriented leaders were associated with higher group productivity and higher job satisfaction, and production-oriented leaders tended to score low in both those areas.<\/p>\n<h2>Blake and Mouton\u2019s Managerial Grid<\/h2>\n<p>In 1964, researchers Robert Blake and Jane Moutin introduced their managerial grid as a graphic portrayal of a two-dimensional view of leadership.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Blake, R. R. and J. S. Mouton. The Managerial Grid. 1964\" id=\"return-footnote-693-3\" href=\"#footnote-693-3\" aria-label=\"Footnote 3\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Like the Ohio State and University of Michigan studies, Blake and Mouton concentrated on concern for production and concern for people. They scored each of those areas on a scale of 1 (low) to 9 (high) to create 81 different positions in which the leader\u2019s style might fall. The result was five different types of behavioral styles.<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter wp-image-708\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4052\/2019\/04\/17194934\/ManagerialGrid.jpg\" alt=\"Blake and Mouton\u2019s Managerial Grid. The x-axis has concern for production, rated from low (one) to high (nine). The y-axis has concern for people, rated from low (one) to high (nine). There are five types of management on the grid. Indifferent management has low concern for production and low concern for people. Accommodating management has low concern for production and high concern for people. Dictatorial management has high concern for production and low concern for people. Sound management has high concern for production and high concern for people.\" width=\"650\" height=\"494\" \/><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>In the <strong>accommodating management style<\/strong>, leaders yield and comply. They pay attention to the comfort of the employees in hopes that they\u2019ll be productive. This style often results in happy employees but is not necessarily productive.<\/li>\n<li>In the <strong>indifferent management style<\/strong>, leaders evade and elude. They don\u2019t give much consideration to people or production, and try to fly under the radar a bit without getting into trouble.<\/li>\n<li>In the <strong>sound management style<\/strong>, leaders contribute and commit. They pay high attention to both people and production and encourage teamwork and commitment. It\u2019s very Theory Y!<\/li>\n<li>In the <strong>dictatorial management style<\/strong>, leaders control and dominate. They pay attention to production but not to people, and use rules and punishment to achieve goals. It\u2019s very Theory X!<\/li>\n<li>In the <strong>status quo management style<\/strong>, leaders balance and compromise. They are middle-of-the-road, and as a result, people needs and production needs aren\u2019t necessarily met.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Managers performed best when they scored in the \u201csound\u201d area. But the grid offered better framework for conceptualizing leadership style rather than presenting any new information in clarifying leadership behaviors, because there\u2019s very little substantive evidence to support the conclusion that a sound style is most effective in all situations.<\/p>\n<h2>The Scandinavian Studies<\/h2>\n<p>We\u2019re going to fast forward a few years to the 1990s, when Scandinavian researchers Ekvall and Arvonen began to reassess the idea that there were only two dimensions that captured the essence of leadership behavior.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Ekvall, G and J. Arvonen, \u201cChange-Centered Leadership: An Extension of the Two-Dimensional Model,\u201d Scandinavian Journal of Management, 1991. M. Lindell and G. Rosenqvist, \u201cIs there a Third Management Style?\u201d Finnish Journal of Business Economics 3, 1992. M. Lindell and G. Rosenqvist, \u201cManagement Behavior Dimensions and Development Orientation,\u201d Leadership Quarterly, 1992.\" id=\"return-footnote-693-4\" href=\"#footnote-693-4\" aria-label=\"Footnote 4\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[4]<\/sup><\/a> In a changing world, they decided, leaders would exhibit development-oriented behavior. By exhibiting development-oriented behavior, these leaders would value experimentation, seek out new ideas and generate and implement change.<\/p>\n<p>In their review of the Ohio State studies, Ekvall and Arvonen found that the researchers had identified behaviors such as \u201cpushes new ways of doing things\u201d and \u201cencourages employees to do new things,\u201d but those items didn\u2019t explain much about leadership in 1940s, when those behaviors didn\u2019t have as great an impact. Their studies indicate that just concentrating on two different dimensions of behavior may not be adequate to capture leadership in the twenty-first century.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox tryit\">\n<h3>PRactice Question<\/h3>\n<p>\t<iframe id=\"assessment_practice_9a26c482-cd69-4475-b24d-6e24d9c9d462\" class=\"resizable\" src=\"https:\/\/assess.lumenlearning.com\/practice\/9a26c482-cd69-4475-b24d-6e24d9c9d462?iframe_resize_id=assessment_practice_id_9a26c482-cd69-4475-b24d-6e24d9c9d462\" frameborder=\"0\" style=\"border:none;width:100%;height:100%;min-height:300px;\"><br \/>\n\t<\/iframe><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>Behavioral theories had modest success in identifying consistent relationships between leadership behavior and group performance. But none of these consider situation as a factor. Would Ralph Nader have been as successful a consumer activist if he\u2019d been in Nicaragua and not the United States? Would Franklin Delano Roosevelt have been as successful leading the nation through the Revolutionary or the Civil Wars? None of these behavioral theories could clarify these situational differences. So, as we continued to grow in our theories of leadership, we started to look at contingency theories\u2014theories that considered the leader <em>and<\/em> the situation.<\/p>\n\n\t\t\t <section class=\"citations-section\" role=\"contentinfo\">\n\t\t\t <h3>Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t <div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t <div id=\"citation-list-693\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t <div class=\"licensing\"><div class=\"license-attribution-dropdown-subheading\">CC licensed content, Original<\/div><ul class=\"citation-list\"><li>Behavioral Approach. <strong>Authored by<\/strong>: Freedom Learning Group. <strong>Provided by<\/strong>: Lumen Learning. <strong>License<\/strong>: <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"license\" href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/\">CC BY: Attribution<\/a><\/em><\/li><li>Image: Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid. <strong>Provided by<\/strong>: Lumen Learning. <strong>License<\/strong>: <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"license\" href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/\">CC BY: Attribution<\/a><\/em><\/li><\/ul><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t <\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t <\/div>\n\t\t\t <\/section><hr class=\"before-footnotes clear\" \/><div class=\"footnotes\"><ol><li id=\"footnote-693-1\">Stogdill, R and A. E. Coons, Leader Behavior: <em>Its Description and Measuremen<\/em>t, 1951 <a href=\"#return-footnote-693-1\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 1\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-693-2\"> Kahn, R and D. Katz. \u201cLeadership Practices in Relation to Productivity and Morale,\u201d <em>Group Dynamics: Research and Theory,<\/em> 1960 <a href=\"#return-footnote-693-2\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 2\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-693-3\"> Blake, R. R. and J. S. Mouton. <em>The Managerial Grid<\/em>. 1964 <a href=\"#return-footnote-693-3\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 3\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-693-4\">Ekvall, G and J. Arvonen, \u201cChange-Centered Leadership: An Extension of the Two-Dimensional Model,\u201d <em>Scandinavian Journal of Management<\/em>, 1991. M. Lindell and G. Rosenqvist, \u201cIs there a Third Management Style?\u201d <em>Finnish Journal of Business Economics 3<\/em>, 1992. M. Lindell and G. Rosenqvist, \u201cManagement Behavior Dimensions and Development Orientation,\u201d <em>Leadership Quarterly<\/em>, 1992. <a href=\"#return-footnote-693-4\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 4\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>","protected":false},"author":17,"menu_order":5,"template":"","meta":{"_candela_citation":"[{\"type\":\"original\",\"description\":\"Behavioral Approach\",\"author\":\"Freedom Learning Group\",\"organization\":\"Lumen Learning\",\"url\":\"\",\"project\":\"\",\"license\":\"cc-by\",\"license_terms\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"original\",\"description\":\"Image: Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid\",\"author\":\"\",\"organization\":\"Lumen Learning\",\"url\":\"\",\"project\":\"\",\"license\":\"cc-by\",\"license_terms\":\"\"}]","CANDELA_OUTCOMES_GUID":"a98d3072-050d-4bc2-b07f-c314ea83f7df, 1e602737-9504-4d6f-adf8-cbfd646c6fb0","pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-693","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":34,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-organizationalbehavior\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/693","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-organizationalbehavior\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-organizationalbehavior\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-organizationalbehavior\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-organizationalbehavior\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/693\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2152,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-organizationalbehavior\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/693\/revisions\/2152"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-organizationalbehavior\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/34"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-organizationalbehavior\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/693\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-organizationalbehavior\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=693"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-organizationalbehavior\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=693"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-organizationalbehavior\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=693"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-organizationalbehavior\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=693"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}