Behavioural approach

From traits to behaviour

After the criticism of trait theory, researchers began asking not “who is the leader?” but “what does the leader do?”. Behaviour - unlike innate traits - can be learned, so this approach laid the foundation for leadership training.

Lewin's studies

Before the war Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lippitt and Ralph White compared autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire styles in boys' groups (1939) - see Lewin's leadership styles.

The Ohio State studies

From 1945 a team at Ohio State University (including Ralph Stogdill and Carroll Shartle) developed the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ). Analyses produced two independent dimensions:

• initiating structure - defining tasks, roles, standards and deadlines;
• consideration - respect, trust, concern for people's well-being.

A leader can be high or low on each dimension independently.

The Michigan studies

In parallel, Rensis Likert's team at the University of Michigan described production-oriented and employee-oriented leaders. Their findings suggested that employee-oriented leaders more often achieved better results.

Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid

In 1964 Robert Blake and Jane Mouton presented the Managerial Grid, crossing concern for production (horizontal axis) with concern for people (vertical axis), each on a 1-9 scale. They identified styles such as impoverished (1,1), country club (1,9), authority-compliance (9,1), middle-of-the-road (5,5) and team management (9,9). They considered 9,9 the ideal - high concern for both task and people.

Assessment

The behavioural approach showed that leadership rests on two pillars: task and relationship. It did not, however, find one style effective always and everywhere, which led to contingency theories: Fiedler's model, path-goal theory and situational leadership.

For a community leader the lesson is practical: care for people does not replace clear tasks and deadlines, and effectiveness must not come at the expense of relationships.