A. Introduction to Excellence in management and leadership

3. Management effectiveness

b. Management behaviours

index of contents

The Effective Workplace Manager - The Behaviour Approach

Figure 2 Leadership Continuum and Theory X and Theory Y

Figure 3 Blake and Mouton Management Grid

Figure 4 Covey Principal Centred Leadership Levels and Principles

Reading 2

Activity 2

The Effective Workplace Manager - The Behaviour Approach

In the previous sub-topics we discussed the fact that many theorists focus on the role(s) that managers assume in their control and leadership of workplace activities. In contrast, the Behaviour Approach to specifying what constitutes effective leader mainly derives data from the characteristics managers display when leading. Essentially, the Behaviour Approach asks what innate behaviours does an effective leader or manager display and what behaviours does an ineffective leader display? While the studies generally cover leadership they tend to focus on leadership as an aspect of management (Conger et al.; 1988). Increasingly leadership has been studied using the Behaviour Approach in an attempt to differentiate the behaviours of leaders and non-leaders. Inevitably, this led to behavioural - psychological theories examining leadership styles.

In 1960 behaviours emphasising participative, and what Likert termed "supportive relationships" began to broaden the study management into the leadership arena:

The leadership and other processes of the organisation must be such as to ensure a maximum probability that in all interactions and all relationships with the organisation each member will, in the light of his background, values and expectations, view the experience as supportive and one which builds and maintains his sense of personal worth and importance. ( Likert, 1961:104)

One theorists, Rensis Likert (1961), sought to validate the leadership behaviours or characteristics that enable leaders to lead subordinates to achieve high levels of productivity while maintaining high employee satisfaction and motivation. He found that those managers (leaders) who placed more emphasis on the "human aspects" rather than production aspects of management, benefited by higher production outcomes.

Likert confirmed that higher productivity can be achieved by allowing employees greater autonomy in task management and completion, while the leader focussed on goal alignment and attainment. Equally staff involved in decision-making processes also felt greater 'ownership' of goals. This reinforced goal attainment.

The effective leader , therefore, instilled goal ownership through collective decision-making and the treatment of staff as human beings first and productive, tasks oriented resources as important, but secondary considerations. Clearly, it was the manager who sought to control tasks and make all decisions that was least able to attain a high degree of leadership effectiveness. An effective leader on the other hand was able to be "unselfish, cooperative, sympathetic, democratic, interested in the agency's success, honest, fair, and willing to help when asked" (Likert, 1961).

Likert as much as any management theorist typifies the Behavioural Approach, but perhaps Douglas McGregor's Theory Y (1960) entrenched the approach in organisational and leadership practice. Essentially, McGregor observed there were two diametrically held assumptions that infiltrated management practice. Managers, he theorised, display behaviours derived from one or the other set of assumptions. The first set of assumptions he called Theory X:

1. The average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if he can...
2. Because of this human characteristic of dislike of work, most people must be coerced, controlled, directed, threatened with punishment to get them to put forth adequate effort toward the achievement of organisational objectives...
3. The average human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition, wants security above all." (McGregor, 1960:33-34)

The second set of assumptions he called Theory Y:

1. The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as play or rest...
2. External control and threat of punishment are not the only means for bringing about effort toward organisational objectives. Man will exercise self-direction and self-control in the service of objectives to which he is committed.
3. Commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated with their achievement...
4. The average human being learns, under proper conditions, not only to accept but to seek responsibility...
5. The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination, ingenuity and creativity in the solution of organisational problems is widely, not narrowly distributed in the population.
6. Under the conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentialities of the average human being are only partially utilised. (McGregor, 1960:47-48)

McGregor concluded that the traits Theory X managers displayed were those of direction and control associated with the exercise of authority, while the traits Theory Y managers displayed were facilitation and integration. McGregor's theory had a remarkable impact on management and even today managers are sometimes referred to as X or Y managers.

The X and Y theory can be considered with the Tannebaum and Schmidt concept of a continuum of leadership (Tannenbaum & Schmidtt, 1972). This has been depicted in Chapter 1, but below we have depicted the continuum of leadership as not only that of a leader as boss-centred (control and management of tasks) and subordinate-centred, but from McGregor's Theory X to Theory Y manager.

Figure 2 Leadership Continuum and Theory X and Theory Y

[ back to index of contents ]

This illustrates how behaviours of a manager may actually be distinct and different when adopting participative or democratic leadership styles. It may be far more than just a sub-set of roles performed by the same manager.

Perhaps the most important work balancing a manager's concern for people or processes was undertaken by Blake and Mouton who developed a two dimensional view of leadership style structured in a managerial grid with two axis: concern for people; and concern for production. The grid has nine possible positions along each axis creating 81 different positions into which a leader's style can fall (Blake & Mouton, 1984).

Figure 3 Blake and Mouton Management Grid

[ back to index of contents ]

Blake and Mouton identified five key positions on the grid:

Cell 1:1 Impoverished: The leader exerts minimum effort to accomplish work.

Cell 9:1 Task: The leader concentrates on task efficiency but shows little concern for the development and morale of subordinates.

Cell 1:9 Country-club: The leader focuses on being supportive and considerate of subordinates to the exclusion of concern for task efficiency.

Cell 5:5 Middle-of-the-road: Adequate task efficiency and satisfactory morale are the goals of this style.

Cell 9:9 Team: The leader facilitates task efficiency and high morale by coordinating and integrating work-related activities.

Blake and Mouton conclude that in a workplace context supervisors and managers perform best using behaviours that achieve a 9:9 result (Blake & Mouton, 1984).

The trait approach spans behavioural and role approaches to defining leadership. Traits are the characteristics that 'good', or indeed great, leaders display. From his observations, Bennis defined four traits common to every one of the 90 managers studied:

1. Management of Attention
2. Management of Meaning
3. Management of Trust
4. Management of Self. (Bennis, 1985:126)

Using the trait approach both leadership and management requires an emphasis on flexible traits that reflect the person's ability to build productivity partnerships between the individual and organisation's needs. The traits may be resident in the person and therefore enable them to become more effective leaders or managers within a given context. Stephen Covey in 1990 (1992) identified seven habits of highly effective people. The habits were tied to the successful leader (Covey, 1992:40-47). They included:

a) Be Proactive

b) Begin with the end in mind

c) Put first things first

d) Think win-win

e) Seek to understand, then to be understood

f) Synergise

g) Sharpen the saw (continuous improvement and self-renewal)

These habits occur against a model where Covey constructs four levels and four key principles for Principle-Centred Leadership.

Figure 4 Covey Principal Centred Leadership Levels and Principles
© 1991 Covey Leadership Centre (Covey, 1992:28)

[ back to index of contents ]

The above model and habits reinforce the effective leader may be defined using widely different criteria. These habits include values and behaviours, not just traits that can be listed, codified, learnt or transferred to others, and nurtured by an organisation or group.

James Kouzes and Barry Posner (1993) examined the importance of credibility as the single most critical factor in leadership. The study also identified not just the characteristics of 'admired' leaders but also found four major characteristics were universally rated very highly:

• Honesty;
• Forward-looking;
• Inspiring; and
• Competent (Kouzes & Posner, 1993:13-18).

Reading 2

McNamara, C (2003) Basics -- Definitions(and Misconceptions) about Management, published online at http://www.mapnp.org/library/mgmnt/defntion.htm#anchor662641

[ back to index of contents ]

Activity 2

Complete the reading from McNamara. This reading provides a very general overview of different definitions on management and the misconceptions these can engender. Now complete the following.

1. Do management behaviours have to vary with level of employment (i.e. seniority or complexity of job role)? Be prepared to discuss and provide evidence for your response.

2. Why is the job of leading different to managing?

3. Do boards of directors manage or lead?

4. McNamara sources other opinions but suggests '" Leading " is influencing someone in some way . or setting direction and activities ."Managing" is explained as carrying out these activities'. Do you agree?

[ back to index of contents ]