Submitted to:Dr.

Faruq Ahmed, ProfessorDepartment of ManagementFaculty of Business

StudiesUniversity of Dhaka
Submitted By: Shoheli Dil AfrozID: 24-04-17-044, Batch: 4thMasters of Professional Human
Resource Management Department of Management, Faculty of Business StudiesUniversity of
Dhaka

Assignment on
Leadership
Submitted To: Submitted By:
Dr. Faruq Ahmed Shoheli Dil Afroz
Professor, Department of Management ID: 24-04-17-044, Batch: 4th
Faculty of Business Studies, University of Dhaka Masters of Professional Human Resource
Management
Department of Management, Faculty of Business
Studies
University of Dhaka

Subject: Fundamentals of Management, Section: B

Date of Submission: 17 November 2017

Introduction
Leadership critical to every company. The demand for more effective leadership is heard throughout
every professions. Modern concepts of leadership differ from the traditional definition of a charismatic
individual leader. Historically, leadership has been vested in positions, while today leadership is seen as a
role one moves continuously into and out of, depending on the circumstance. Leadership ideas have
evolved so that newer characteristics of leaders include being a team builder; possessing creative and
strategic thinking skills; demonstrating honesty and integrity; and having the ability to motivate others to
action.

Workers need someone to look to, learn from and thrive with. Every leader has their own style and
strategy. Further, leadership styles and methods vary because of outside influences and personal
challenges.

1. Definition of Leadership
Simply we can say that, leadership is the ability to motivate individuals and groups to accomplish
important goals.
While leadership is unique to everyone, there are some common ways to define the term. Leadership can
be hard to define and it means different things to different people.
There are almost as many definitions of Leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the
concept. (Stogdill, 1974)

The Oldest Definition of Leadership

Probably the oldest definition of leadership was given in Early 20th Century. A conference
on leadership was held in 1927, and Moore reported that at the conference Steward defined leadership as
the ability to impress the will of the leader on those led and induce obedience, respect, loyalty, and
cooperation

Scholarly Definitions
"Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a
common goal." Northouse (2004, p 3)
Leadership is not a person or a position. It is a complex moral relationship between people,
based on trust, obligation, commitment, emotion, and a shared vision of the good. Joanne
Ciulla
Leadership is the capacity to translate vision into reality Warren Bennis
"As we look ahead into the next century, leaders will be those who empower others." Bill
Gates

2
Therefore we can say agreeing with Gary Yukl that, Leadership is the process of influencing others to
understand and agree about what needs to be done and how to do it, and the process of facilitating
individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives.

2. Elements of Leadership
There are five key elements of leadership. Which are as following.

i. Leaders-Followers
ii. Influence
iii. Organizational Objectives
iv. Change
v. People

People

Organizational
Change
Objectives

Influence Leadership Leaders-Followers

3
 i. Leader-follower: Leaders influence the behavior of team members, and vice versa
ii. Influencing: Leaders and team members using knowledge and competence rather than position
and status to influence each other
iii. Organizational Objectives: Outcomes that leaders and team members want to accomplish
iv. Change: Needed to achieve objectives
v. People: Leadership is about leading team members

3. Understanding the differences:

leadership vs. Management

Is a good manager automatically a good leader? What is the difference between leadership and
management?

The main difference between leaders and managers is that leaders have people follow them while
managers have people who work for them.

If an organization has strong management without leadership, the outcome can be stifling and
bureaucratic. Conversely, if an organization has strong leadership without management, the outcome can
be meaningless or misdirected change for the changes sake. To be effective organizations need to
nourish both competent management and skilled leadership.( Peter G. Northouse, Leadership, P13)

What Do Managers Do?

A manager is the member of an organization with the responsibility of carrying out the four important
functions of management: planning, organizing, leading, and controlling. But are all managers leaders?

Most managers also tend to be leaders, but only IF they also adequately carry out the leadership
responsibilities of management, which include communication, motivation, providing inspiration and
guidance, and encouraging employees to rise to a higher level of productivity.

Unfortunately, not all managers are leaders. Some managers have poor leadership qualities, and
employees follow orders from their managers because they are obligated to do sonot necessarily
because they are influenced or inspired by the leader.

Managerial duties are usually a formal part of a job description; subordinates follow as a result of the
professional title or designation. A managers chief focus is to meet organizational goals and objectives;
they typically do not take much else into consideration. Managers are held responsible for their actions, as
well as for the actions of their subordinates. With the title comes the authority and the privilege to
promote, hire, fire, discipline, or reward employees based on their performance and behavior.

4
What Do Leaders Do?
The primary difference between management and leadership is that leaders dont necessarily hold or
occupy a management position. Simply put, a leader doesnt have to be an authority figure in the
organization; a leader can be anyone.

Unlike managers, leaders are followed because of their personality, behavior, and beliefs. A leader
personally invests in tasks and projects and demonstrates a high level of passion for work. Leaders take a
great deal of interest in the success of their followers, enabling them to reach their goals to satisfaction
these are not necessarily organizational goals.

There isnt always tangible or formal power that a leader possesses over his followers. Temporary power
is awarded to a leader and can be conditional based on the ability of the leader to continually inspire and
motivate their followers.

Subordinates of a manager are required to obey orders while following is optional when it comes to
leadership. Leadership works on inspiration and trust among employees; those who do wish to follow
their leader may stop at any time. Generally, leaders are people who challenge the status quo. Leadership
is change-savvy, visionary, agile, creative, and adaptive.

A successful business owner needs to be both a strong leader and manager to get their team on board to
follow them towards their vision of success. Leadership is about getting people to understand and believe
in your vision and to work with you to achieve your goals while managing is more about administering
and making sure the day-to-day things are happening as they should.

Leadership and Management Overlap

The idea that leadership and management are distinct but still overlap is the most prominent idea in
leadership research today. Two distinct views about how leadership and management overlap are
common in the literature. The first view imagines leadership as a higher form of management; that is,
leadership is management done well. The second view comes from the stance that management is what
goes on in organizations. Leadership is simply an essential skill of managers. The logic that management
subsumes leadership makes sense given the historical dominance of management study, the lack of a
coherent leadership theory, and the ultimate concern that the majority of people occupy management
positions by title or collective understanding. This way of thinking has experienced resurgence since the
exponential growth of organizations (Kotterman, 2006).

Functional Differences between Management and Leadership

Despite definitional differences, it is evident that management and leadership are both involved with
carrying out an organizations mission, attending to human relationships, making sure that people
take actions toward the mission, and assuming responsibility for the success of the organization. What
differs are the ways in which these organizational objectives are accomplished; that is, management and
leadership have different functions within an organization. As Kotter (1990a) and Kotterman (2006)
remind us, both functions are needed for an organization to fulfill its mission, objectives, and goals.
Management is tactical and leadership is strategic (Kotterman, 2006). Kotter(1990a) noted that managers
work at making the organizational systems work efficiently and effectively hour after hour, day after

5
day (Kotter, 2012, para. 5). In contrast, leadership imagines and creates the systems and constantly looks
toward the future (Kotter, 1990a). We now turn to the different functions in detail by looking at mission,
human relationships, organizational processes, and key tasks.

Leadership and management are two concepts that seem to go hand in hand. It is common to assume that
to be in a manager position it also means to be in a leader. Despite the popularity of this belief, it is
untrue. Leadership and management certainly share similarities, but they are actually two different
concepts. John P. Kotter (2013) for the Harvard Business Review blog titled, Management Is (Still) Not
Leadership. The article highlights a few of the common mistakes when considering leadership and
management, two of which I find the most crucial mistakes. Both include the wrong idea about the two
and this could lead to dire consequences. For organizations to be successful, the functions of leadership
and management need to clear.

One mistake that Kotter (2013) points out is that people use the terms management and leadership
interchangeably, (para. 4). This is common and I have been guilty of doing the same. Its easily done
because the two do share some similarities. They both include the involvement of influence, they both
work with groups, and they both are concerned with goal accomplishment, (Northouse, 2013). A manager
has to possess a certain amount of influence over the group, just as a leader does to achieve a common
goal. However, despite these similarities between the two, the concepts do not carry the same meanings.

It is important to distinguish the differences between leadership and management. It is also important to
know, the vital functions that each role plays, (Kotter, 2013, para. 4). The differences include the
primary functions of each concept. A manager is meant to reduce chaos so that an organization can run
efficiently, (Northouse, 2013). Structure and stability are expected from a manager. A leader is meant to
produce change and movement, (Northouse, 2013, p.10). A leader uses creativity to guide a group into
achieving a common goal. The two roles play specific parts in an organization and both are equally
essential.

6
Another mistake that Kotter (2013) points out that I found to be crucial is that people use the term
leadership to refer to the people at the very top of hierarchies, (para. 5). This implies that if a manager
is the highest position within a specific branch of an organization, they are a leader as well. This is
obviously not true considering the two do not mean the same thing. A manager is in place to keep the
branch running smoothly, taking care of scheduling and budgeting issues. This relationship is a
unidirectional authority relationship, (Northouse, 2013, p.11). The manager is in a position of authority
over the group to ensure work gets done. A leader is expected to motivate, engage, and produce change.
The relationship is a multi-directional influence relationship, (Northouse, 2013, p.11). Rather than
working in one direction with the group, a leader works in many different directions. This mistake can be
very misleading. A good manager is not necessarily a good leader, although it is ideal that an individual
should be both. This lack of understanding can cause confusion when it comes to what is expected of the
individual within a role of leader or manager.

The roles in leadership and management are very important to the organizations. Each organization needs
a manager that can keep things running smoothly. Each also needs a leader that can move the organization
to change and jump them into the future, (Kotter, 2013, para. 9). To be effective and achieve success,
these two concepts need to be defined and clearly stated. This ensures hiring of the right individual for
each role.

4. Leadership Styles

Different people have different personalities, skills and strengths and so do leaders. As a result, different
leaders may have different styles of leadership, each coming from different components of the leaders
emotional intelligence. The purpose of this post is to give a brief introduction to each leadership style, its
impact to the organization and when the style works best.

According to Goleman (2000), there are six leadership styles are Coercive, Authorative, Affiliative,
Democratic, Pacesetting and Coaching

7
8
 i. Coercive: A coercive leader demands immediate compliance from his followers. A phrase that
can summarize this style is: Do what I tell you. This style should only be used (with extreme
caution) in a few situations such as crisis, turnaround or dealing with problem employees. Other
than that, this style should be avoided due to the fact that it may demotivate as well as reduce the
morale and feelings of the followers. In general, the Coercive style is the least effective in most
situations and it has negative impacts to the organization.

ii. Authoritative: An authoritative leader mobilizes people toward a vision. If this style can be
summarized in one phrase, it will be Come with me. This style works well in almost any
situation but it is particularly effective when changes require a new vision or when a clear
direction is needed. However, this approach may fail when a leader is working with a team of
experts who are more experienced than he is; they may see the leader as arrogant or out-of-touch.
Generally speaking, the Authoritative style is the most effective one and it has positive impacts to
the organization.

iii. Affiliative: An affiliative leader creates harmony and builds emotional bonds. People come
first is the slogan of this leadership style. The affiliative style should be used when leaders try to
build team harmony, increase morale, improve communication, or repair broken trust. However,
this style should not be used alone since it may allow poor performance to go uncorrected as well
as affiliative leaders rarely provide directions to their followers. In general, the Affiliative style
has positive impacts to the organization.

9
iv. Democratic: A democratic leader forces consensus through participation. Their most popular
question is What do you think?. The democratic style works best when a leader is himself
uncertain about the best direction to take and needs ideas and guidance from able employees. And
even if a leader has a strong vision, this style works well to generate fresh ideas for executing that
vision. However, the disadvantages of this style can be endless meetings where ideas are mulled
over, consensus remains elusive, and the only visible result is scheduling more meetings. As a
result, the Democratic leadership style is not as good as other styles even though it also has
positive impacts on the organization.

v. Pacesetting: A pacesetting leader sets high standards for performance. We usually hear he says
Do as I do, now. This style works well when all employees are self-motivated, highly
competent, and need little direction or coordination. However, employees may feel overwhelmed
by the pacesetting leaders demands for excellence, and their morale may drop. Similar to the
Affiliative style, the Pacesetting style should not be used alone and in general, it has negative
impacts to the organization.

10
 vi. Coaching: A coaching leader develops people for the future and he usually encourage his
followers by saying Try this. This style works well in many situation but it is most effective
when people on the receiving ends are up for it. In other words, the coaching style works best
with employees who would like to improve their performance and want to be coached. On the
contrary, the style may not work when employees are resistant to learning or when the leader
lacks the expertise to help the employee. Generally speaking, the Coaching style has positive
impacts to the organization.

Golemans research also shows that leaders with the best results do not rely on only one leadership style;
they may use different style on different situations or combine them together. The more styles a leader
exhibits, the better. Leaders who have mastered four or more, especially the Authoritative, Democratic,
Affiliative, and Coaching styles, have the very best climate and business performance. And the most
effective leaders switch flexibly among the six leadership styles as needed. (Goleman, D., 2000.
Leadership that gets results, Harvard Business Review, March-April 2006, p.78-90)

11
 5. Leadership Theory
There are several theories to review in the study of leadership. Each author conducting a study on a
particular leadership theory provides a unique conceptualization or perspective of how leadership is
defined in its application of theory. There are five major theories leadership. They are the trait,
behavioral, power-influence, situational, and integrative approaches. No theoretical approach in and of
itself guarantees leadership success. Instead, a variety of leadership methods should be used to achieve
leadership success. However, research explains the progress in discovering how leadership theories relate
to the exercise of leadership with regard to the leader, the follower, and situational characteristics.

Approaches to Leadership Theory

12
 i. Trait Approach

Trait approach theories study any exceptional or distinct qualities differentiating the leader from the
followers, with the implication that it should be possible to identify a leader based on those traits. Most
research in this area, beginning in the 1940s, focused on the individual traits and consequences of the
leaders behavior in displaying specific traits. Barnard M. Bass conducted a mega study using fifty-two
organizational surveys. In reviewing these surveys, he identified trait factors that appeared three or more
times in any one organizational survey identifying a comprehensive list of traits used by organizational
leaders. Also highlighted in Basss work is whether the leader or employee possesses one or more specific
traits that lend to or detract from achieving organizational success.

Great Man Theories

These are the Theories that consider personality, social, physical, or intellectual traits to differentiate
leaders from non-leaders. In the mid-20th century, the trait approach was challenged by research.

Traits can predict leadership, but they are better at predicting leader emergence than effectiveness.

ii. Behavioral Approach

A way to better understand the behavioral approach involves an understanding of the path-goal theory
(Bass, B. M.,1990. Handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press, p. 46) in terms of the operant
conditioning of the follower to perform a required task or behave in a certain manner. An example of the

13
path-goal theory is when the leader reinforces the desired change behavior in a follower or subordinate by
demonstrating what reward is available to him or her. The leader shows the follower the paths
(behaviors) through which the reward may be obtained. The focus of this particular theoretical approach
is on the leaders observable behaviors (actions) that influence followers to commit their actions to meet
the specified task requirement of the leader.

Path Goal Theory

The path-goal theory stipulates the leaders behavior is the operant condition cue that evokes the
followers actions to accomplish a task or behave in the desired manner the leader is seeking. The cue
often begins with the leader communicating (written or verbal) an organizational task with a purpose,
such as when a leader directs a follower to complete a report (task) in order to assess the number of
customer uses per type of service (purpose). The leader is performing (behaving) his or her role by
eliciting a cue to the follower to begin accomplishing a task. The desired followers behavior to complete
the report and meet the purpose of the task is in response to the leaders initial behavioral cue. The
followers actions to accomplish the task can act as a positive or negative consequence for the leader,
reinforcing other actions from the leader that are dependent on the follower succeeding or failing at the
task. Such responses may come in the form of a punishment, based on a negative consequence, or
extinguish the leaders subsequent behaviors on how he or she may cue or communicate future actions.

A leaders behavioral approach may not come from the leaders cue but instead originate from one or
more environmental cues. In this case, in the leaders absence, an environmental situation may influence
or cause the follower to perform certain organizational tasks without the leader communicating a task or
purpose. This is an example where leaders do not directly cause followers behavior, though they do
influence them by stating their intent (which can act as a communication cue) if an environmental
condition or stimulus of a particular nature occurs. In this sense, the leaders intent causes the follower to
take action based on the environmental cue rather than the leaders direct communication. Situational
conditions, or cues, are important for leaders to recognize. Leaders will not always be present to cue the
follower to take action. Because of this, leaders may set the conditions or provide a stimulus (positive or
negative reinforcement cue), such as creating standard operating procedures in case of emergency
responses at a school or in the workplace (like snow or ice storm days). The desired behavioral response
the leader wants from the follower is either delayed arrival or absence. The consequence of not following
the standard operating procedure, based on the situational condition, could be harmful to the employee or
organization by causing safety violations. Not following such environmental cues may influence future
leader and follower behaviors.

iii. Power-Influence Approach

This research approach involves a dyadic leader-follower relationship. Like most research on traits and
behavior, some of the power-influence research takes a leader-centered perspective with an implicit
assumption that a cause to effect, where the cause is the leaders action and the effect is the followers
reaction, involves a dyadic leader-to-led influence approach, where the leaders direct a task and purpose
and the followers react to perform the task within the stated purpose of the action. The effectiveness of
leadership power is examined in this approach in terms of the amount and type of personal and position

14
power a leader has and how the power is managed. Chapter 4 Building Teams, Adaptive and Situational
Leadership, and Leadership Power presents a detailed section on what leadership power is and how
leaders and followers use power to influence each other. Leadership power in this approach is viewed as a
means to influence the behavior of not only followers but also peers, superiors, and other stakeholders
coming in contact with the organization. As an introduction to position and personal power, the following
definitions are offered:

Position power includes potential influence derived primarily from the opportunities inherent in
a persons position in the organization or from attributes of the leader and leader-follower
relationship. There are five types of position power: legitimate, reward, information, coercive,
and ecological.
Personal power includes potential influence derived from the leaders task expertise and
potential influence based on friendship and loyalty to the leader from the led. There are two
types of personal power: expert and referent.

Gary Yukl states the desired outcome of power for effective leaders indicates a reliance on their personal
power more than on position power. Personal power includes expert and referent power, yet the more
effective leaders are identified with using expert power more than referent power and as having a
moderate amount of position power in the organization. (Yukl, G., 2013, Leadership in organizations (8th
ed.). Boston: Pearson)

Power relationships in organizations are never static, as situations and organizational climate conditions
constantly change the type and quantity of power used to meet the leadership demands presented by
followers, subordinates, or teams.

iv. Situational Approach

The situational approach is another possible approach. Situational theories, such as Hersey-Blanchards
leadership theory, help people choose the right leadership style for their situation. Situational leadership
that leaders should change their leadership styles based on the maturity of the people they are leading and
the detail of the tasks to be performed. theory (MindTools. n.d. Hersey-Blanchard situational leadership
theory. Retrieved November 14, from
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_44.htm#sthash.Mcffypop.dpufstates)

The theory states leaders should change their behaviors based on the competence of the followers (this
can be conceived of as maturity/development) and the commitment of the followers (not the detail of the
task).

In this case, the leader can focus his or her behavior on either the relationship with the followers or the
task. Increasing or decreasing the emphasis on the task or on the followers becomes the leaders focus in
achieving the organizational goal.

In this approach, the situation influences the demand that determines who will emerge as a leader for any
given situation

15
 v. Integrative Approach
The integrative approach includes more than a single variable of study. In this case, it could include a
study of trait and behavioral approaches, or the power-influence and situational approaches, or a
combination of more than two. It is rare, though, to find a study that includes all the approaches discussed
in this section. Researchers today find that the outcome of leadership can be a matter of using various
approaches; for example, situations provide self-selection of leaders, and the leader in this case must
possess the appropriate traits to be effective in solving the situational problem.

The study of leadership involves three key variables: the leader, the followers, and the situation the first
two find themselves in

Summary of Leadership Styles

Theory Definition

Trait theories study any superior or unique qualities that differentiate the leader
from the followers, with the implication that it should be possible to identify a
Trait approach
leader based on those traits.
This theoretical approach focuses on the leaders observable behaviors that
influence followers to commit their actions to meet the specified task
Behavioral approach requirement of the leader. The theory stipulates the leaders behavior is the cue
that evokes the followers actions to accomplish a task or behave in a certain
manner.
This research approach involves a dyadic leader-follower relationship. Like
most research on traits and behavior, some of the power-influence research takes
Power-influence
a leader-centered perspective with an implicit assumption that causality involves
approach
a dyadic leader-to-follower influence approach where the leaders direct a task
and the followers react to perform the task based on the direction.
In this approach, the situation influences the demand that determines who will
emerge as a leader for any given situation. For example, a situational theorist
will contend that an emerging leader will appear in response to revolutionary
Situational approach upheaval, chaotic politics, social and economic distress, and the weakening of
traditional institutions. In these situations, the emerging leader is a result of
time, place, and circumstance, and the leader cannot help what he or she did
since it was directed and controlled by the historical moment.
The integrative approach includes more than a single variable of study. In this
case, it could include a study of trait and behavioral approaches, or the power-
influence and situational approaches, or any combination of approaches. It is
Integrative approach
rare, though, to find a study that includes all the approaches discussed in this
section. Researchers today find that the outcome of leadership can be a matter of
using various approaches.

16
So, the trait style of leadership gives more credence to the qualities a people are born with rather than
those they develop or the relationships they develop with followers. Leadership trait theory is the idea that
people are born with certain character traits. This is the style that is attributed to whom others see as a
born leader. These traits, while not totally responsible for an individuals success as a leader, are
influential in the success of the leader. This theory assumes that if you can identify people with the
correct traits, you will be able to identify leaders.

6. Does the Leader Make History or the

History Makes Leader?
Acts of leadership take place in an unimaginable variety of settings, and the setting does much to
determine the kinds of leaders that emerge and how they play their roles. We cannot avoid the be-
whiskered question, Does the leader make history or does the historical moment make the leader? The
balanced view, of course, is that historical forces create the circumstances in which leaders emerge, but
the characteristics of the particular leader in turn have their impact on history.

Every great leader knows the feeling of being caught up in the momentum of a great cause. True leaders
live for those moments and exert every ounce of their ability to push things along toward their ultimate
vision. For a leader, there is perhaps nothing more exhilarating than having one's efforts lead to results
that are in line with the highest picture the leader has of his or her self, goal, and vision.

It has been said that trying times reveal a leader's character. Another statement says that "wars make
heroes." Certainly there is something to be said for the times themselves being at least a little responsible

17
for presenting opportunities for a leader to thrive. After all, doesn't it make sense that there are hundreds
of generals just as capable as the ones who became famous during war time, but never really achieved
fame and notoriety because there was no war to make them known?

On the other hand, it also makes sense that a leader can impact those around him or her and even alter the
course of events. Certainly a leader's efforts make a difference. As we've discussed at length on this
blog, a leader's efforts often have an enormous impact. Who would lead if the efforts of a leader made no
difference whatsoever.

Considering these two points of view reveals a paradox. Namely, those events make leaders, but leaders
also make events.

7. Managerial Grid of Leadership

Theory
The managerial grid model (1964) is a style leadership model developed by Robert R. Blake and Jane
Mouton.This model originally identified five different leadership styles based on the concern for people
and the concern for production. (Blake, R.; Mouton, J. 1964. The Managerial Grid: The Key to
Leadership Excellence. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.)

18
The optimal leadership style in this model is based on Theory Y.The grid theory has continued to evolve
and develop. The theory was updated with two additional leadership styles and with a new element,
resilience. In 1999, the grid managerial seminar began using a new text, The Power to Change.

The model is represented as a grid with concern for production as the x-axis and concern for people as the
y-axis; each axis ranges from 1 (Low) to 9 (High). The resulting leadership styles are as follows:The
indifferent (previously called impoverished) style (1,1): evade and elude. In this style, managers have low
concern for both people and production. Managers use this style to preserve job and job seniority,
protecting themselves by avoiding getting into trouble. The main concern for the manager is not to be
held responsible for any mistakes, which results in less innovation decisions.

The accommodating (previously, country club) style (1,9): yield and comply. This style has a high
concern for people and a low concern for production. Managers using this style pay much attention to the
security and comfort of the employees, in hopes that this will increase performance. The resulting
atmosphere is usually friendly, but not necessarily very productive.

The dictatorial (previously, produce or perish) style (9,1): control and dominate. With a high concern for
production, and a low concern for people, managers using this style find employee needs unimportant;
they provide their employees with money and expect performance in return. Managers using this style
also pressure their employees through rules and punishments to achieve the company goals. This
dictatorial style is based on Theory X of Douglas McGregor, and is commonly applied by companies on
the edge of real or perceived failure. This style is often used in cases of crisis management.

The status quo (previously, middle-of-the-road) style (5,5): balance and compromise. Managers using this
style try to balance between company goals and workers' needs. By giving some concern to both people
and production, managers who use this style hope to achieve suitable performance but doing so gives
away a bit of each concern so that neither production nor people needs are met.

The sound (previously, team) style (9,9): contribute and commit. In this style, high concern is paid both to
people and production. As suggested by the propositions of Theory Y, managers choosing to use this style
encourage teamwork and commitment among employees. This method relies heavily on making
employees feel themselves to be constructive parts of the company.

The opportunistic style: exploit and manipulate. Individuals using this style, which was added to the grid
theory before 1999, do not have a fixed location on the grid. They adopt whichever behavior offers the
greatest personal benefit.

The paternalistic style: prescribe and guide. This style was added to the grid theory before 1999. In The
Power to Change, it was redefined to alternate between the (1,9) and (9,1) locations on the grid. Managers
using this style praise and support, but discourage challenges to their thinking.

19
Behavioral elements

Grid theory breaks behavior down into seven key elements:

Element Description
Initiative Taking action, driving and supporting
Inquiry Questioning, researching and verifying understanding
Advocacy Expressing convictions and championing ideas
Decision making Evaluating resources, choices and consequences
Conflict resolution Confronting and resolving disagreements
Resilience Dealing with problems, setbacks and failures
Critique Delivering objective, candid feedback

Conclusion
When good leadership is in place in a company, it can be felt throughout the entire organization. With
good leadership, corporate culture isnt forced, it is developed. Communication is daily and open.
Everyone understands the vision and goals of the organization, and everyone has input into how they can
be improved. Employees feel that they are an important part of the whole and that every job matters
within the company. Decisions for promotions are based on picking people of integrity whose talents and
experience best fit the positions. Employees are encouraged to compete with their own best to get ahead
and they understand that helping their coworkers to succeed is the best way to get ahead themselves. The
result of good leadership is high morale, good employee retention, and sustainable long-term success.

20