Finding the Balance between

Task-Oriented and Relationship-

Oriented Leadership

Patrice M. Lombard
Management 401
12/13/2013
 Table of Contents
Executive Summary ii
Introduction 1
History of Leadership Theories 2
Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid 4
Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership 6
Fiedler’s Contingency Theory9
House’s Path-Goal Theory 12
Vroom and Yetton’s Normative Model 14
Leadership Theories: Pros and Cons 17

Advantages and Disadvantages of Task-Oriented Leadership 19

Advantages and Disadvantages of Relationship-Oriented Leadership 20

How to and Why to Achieve a Balance 22

My Epiphany 26

Works Cited A

i
Executive Summary

This paper will provide a brief history of leadership theories and an overview of several

different leadership theories used in determining leadership and decision-making styles. It will

then explore the differences between and the advantages and disadvantages of task-oriented

leadership and relationship-oriented leadership. And lastly, it will show “how to” and “why to”

achieve a healthy balance between tasks and relationships.

Through the years there have been many different leadership theories developed dating

back as far as the Great Man Theory of the mid-1840s. This paper will concentrate on five of

these theories: Blake and Mouton’s Leadership Grid (1964); Hersey and Blanchard Situational

Leadership (1970s-80s); Fiedler’s Contingency Theory (1958); House’s Path-Goal Theory

(1971); and Vroom and Yetton’s Normative Model (1973). After each theory is defined its pros

and cons will be outlined to provide a better working knowledge of the theories as they relate to

task and relationship orientations. Then task-orientation and relationship-orientation will also be

defined and the advantages and disadvantages of each will be illustrated to give an overarching

understanding of their qualitative differences. In summation the how and why of achieving a

balance between tasks and relationships will be examined in order to best understand what it

takes to become a truly successful leader.

And lastly, my epiphany from writing this paper.

ii
Introduction

When looking at task-oriented leadership versus relationship-oriented leadership, each

has its own advantages and disadvantages as well as timely application. However, in order to

truly be effective as a leader one must find the balance between both orientations. Relying too

much on tasks may cause disconnect between leaders and their subordinates. As a result,

relationships become strained thus creating a lack of motivation in employees leading to lowered

productivity. Conversely, yet ultimately producing the same results, relying too much on

relationships may cause tasks to suffer, which adversely affects employee output as they take

advantage of such relationships and their willingness to perform is markedly decreased.

In the quest to find a harmonious balance between task-oriented leadership and

relationship-oriented leadership one must understand the advantages and disadvantages of each

orientation and have a working knowledge of the leadership and decision-making theories that

have been developed over the years. Because “the main goal of a leader is to motivate

employees toward a goal” (Nemaei, 2012, p. 35) exploring the theories behind effective

leadership and decision-making will not only help find that balance between tasks and

relationships, it will also take the guess work out of what areas of leadership the leader needs to

hone and shape to produce positive results.

The following five theories are behavioral and contingency leadership theories: 1)

Blake and Mouton’s Leadership Grid (1964); 2) Hersey and Blanchard Situational Leadership

(1970s-80s); Fiedler’s Contingency Theory (1958); 4) House’s Path-Goal Theory (1971); and 5)

Vroom, Yetton, and Jago’s Normative Model (1973) (Leadership-central, 2013c).

Understanding the theory behind leadership practices will allow leaders to master their own

psychological characteristics and develop their individual leadership practices (Avolio, 2009) .

1
Thus positioning leaders on the correct path to discovering how and why the need to find the

balance between tasks and relationships is so important. This discovery will be pivotal in

determining the success or failure of leadership careers. For purpose of clarity, please note that

throughout this paper the words leadership and management will be used synonymously.

History of Leadership Theories

There have been numerous leadership theories established since the mid-1840s. These

“theories are commonly categorized by which aspect is believed to define the leader the most.

The most widespread one’s are: Great Man Theory, Trait Theory, Behavioural Theories,

Contingency Theories, Transactional Theories, and Transformational Theories” (Leadership-

central, 2013c, para. 2). Each one of these types of theories has its pros and cons, defining

attributes, and is taught in management classes at nearly every college nationwide, perhaps even

worldwide. While that is the case, some of the aforementioned leadership theories are used more

often than others, but all have played some sort of role in effective leadership since their origins.

In the early days the Great Man theory was established and stated that “great leaders are

born . . . they are not made” (Leadership-central, 2013c, para. 4). Although there is no way of

proving the validity of this theory, there have been people throughout time who believed, and

still do so today, that in order for a leader to be great he must possess the innate traits of a great

leader (Leadership-central, 2013c).

In the same vein as the Great Man theory, the Trait theory argues that leaders “are either

born or are made with certain qualities” (Leadership-central, 2013c, para. 6). Unfortunately,

even with a much more psychological approach than the Great Man theory to identifying

leadership behaviors, this theory’s validity was deemed inconclusive as well. However, its

2
inception did spawn “the behavioral approach” (Leadership-central, 2013c, para. 8) of leadership

theory.

It is not surprising that next type of theory on the leadership theory timeline is Behavioral

theories – due in large part to the pioneering work of the Trait theory. The Behavioral theories

approached leadership from a slightly different angle than the Trait Theory. Whereas Trait

theory focuses on “mental, physical, and social characteristics” (Leadership-central, 2013c, para.

5), Behavioral theories focuses on concern for tasks and concern for people (Leadership-central,

2013c).

This leads leadership theory into the era of Contingency theories. Contingency theories

brought about the idea that each situation required (and benefited) from a unique leadership style

and “that there is no single way of leading” (Leadership-central, 2013c, para. 13). With that idea

in mind several theories were created and are still taught and in use today.

Transactional and Transformational theories were developed in the 1970s. The basis of

these two (2) types of theories is the relationship between the leader and his/her employees

(Leadership-central, 2013c). Transactional theories utilize a reward and punishment

motivational style, whereas Transformational theories are truly based on the idea “that leaders

transform their followers through their inspirational nature and charismatic personalities”

(Leadership-central, 2013c, para. 19).

Although there are many viable leadership theories that could aid leaders in finding a

balance between tasks and relationships, the focus of this paper will be on the behavioral theory

of Blake and Mouton and the contingency theories of Fiedler, Hersey and Blanchard, House, and

Vroom, Yetton, and Jago.

3
Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid Theory

Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid theory is considered a behavioral leadership theory

because it focuses on behaviors that determine if the leader is more interested in production

(tasks) or more interested in people (relationships) (Mindtools.com, 2013). The theory was

conceived by Dr. Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in 1964 and is still utilized in today’s business

world (Leadership-central, 2013d).

The main attributes of the theory can be summarized by the grid that Blake and Mouton

created (see Figure 1). The grid’s purpose is to allow leaders to plot their concern for production

or task-orientation (x-axis) and their concern for people or relationship-orientation (y-axis) to

determine their leadership style. Both axes use a one (1) to nine (9) scale that puts the leader into

one of five management styles. Where the leader falls on the grid is based on the numbers

assigned to the task- and relationship-orientations, which are determined by his/her tendency

toward each behavior. (Mindtools.com, 2013).

Figure 1

Source: http://answers.mheducation.com/business/management/supervision/supervisor-leader

4
 The five management styles are identified as impoverished, country club, team leader,

middle-of-the-road, and authority-compliance also known as task management (Dr. Sherry

Robinson, personal communication, November 20, 2013). Blake and Mouton offer clear

definitions of each management style, which are based on the extremes of each orientation.

However, a leader can fall anywhere on the grid. For example, if a leader feels he/she is a seven

(7) in concern for production (task) and a six (6) in concern for people (relationship) then the

leadership style would fall slightly under team management and just above middle-of-the-road

(as denoted by the red star in Figure 1). In order to fully appreciate and apply what the red star

position means or what any other position on the grid means, Blake and Mouton’s management

styles need to be defined and understood.

Below are comprehensive definitions of each managerial style and what potential results

the organization and the employees may see from each type of leader, according to an article on

Mindtools.com:

 Impoverished (1-tasks, 1-relationships): An impoverished leader has little concern for

either tasks or relationships. They do the bare minimum in respects to both categories,
which creates “. . . disorganization, dissatisfaction, and disharmony” (Mindtools.com,
2013, para. 9) in the workplace.

 Country Club (1-tasks, 9-relationships): A country club leader wants to be a friend to

employees and keep everyone happy even if it is at the expense of production. This
creates a great place to work, but one that may not be in business for very long due to
“. . . lack of direction and control” (Mindtools.com, 2013, para. 10).

 Authority-Compliance (9-tasks, 1-relationships): An authority-compliance leader is

truly a task master. They see no reason to build relationships as the workplace is just that
– a place to do work. This type of leaderships results in low productivity and high
employee dissatisfaction (Leadership-central, 2013d).

 Middle-of-the-Road (5-tasks, 5-relationships): A middle-of-the-road leader tends to go

with the status quo and by doing so do does not meet the needs of either production or the
employees. This type of leader is perfectly fine with “average performance and often
believe that this is the most anyone can expect” (Mindtools.com, 2013, para. 12).

5
  Team Leader: A team leader puts production and people needs on the same level on the
high end of the one-to-nine scale. This high regard for people gives employees a sense of
empowerment in respect to production needs and loyalty to the leader and the
organization, which in turn has a positive effect on productivity. This type of leadership
“creates a team environment based on trust and respect . . . and, as a result, high
production” (Mindtools.com, 2013, para. 14).

When using the managerial grid, it is important for leaders to take an inventory of their

strengths and areas of opportunity and to be honest with themselves when determining their

concern for production and concern for people numbers. Equally important for leaders is to have

a clear understanding of where they are on the grid and how to use that knowledge to continually

learn and grow. And lastly, truly effective leaders need to evaluate and reevaluate their

leadership style and adapt it to each situation as it arises (Mindtools.com, 2013). Although Blake

and Mouton felt that team leadership was the most effective style, they also were aware that no

one leadership approach would work in every situation because every leadership situation is

different from the next (Mindtools.com, 2013).

Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Theory

According to Management 301W with Dr. Sherry Robinson, Associate Professor of

Business Administration at Penn State Hazleton, Hersey and Blanchard developed their

situational leadership theory around two (2) main aspects – worker readiness and leadership

style. These two aspects directly affect what leadership tactic is preferential in any given

situation. There are four (4) different levels of the behaviors associated with each of the aspects.

Worker readiness is categorized by job and psychological readiness, which translates to the

degree an employee is able to and willing to perform his/her job duties, while leadership style is

defined in terms of task and relationship behaviors (Dr. Sherry Robinson, personal

communication, November 20, 2013). Depending on the level of each is where the leader will

be on the “Situational Leadership” grid (Nepal, 2011, para. 1).

6
 In order for leaders to determine which of the four leadership behaviors best fits a

specific situation, they must first determine the level of worker readiness (see Table 1) and then

adapt their leadership style accordingly (Leadership-central, 2013b).

Table 1

Level Ability Willingness Worker Readiness

R1 Low Low Lacks specific skills and not willing to learn
R2 Medium Low Has some skills, but needs more motivation
R3 High Medium Experienced and capable, but lacks confidence
R4 High High Very Experienced and highly motivated
(Mindtools.com, n.d.a)

Secondly, understanding the underlying reasons behind what makes some employees

thrive, when others do just enough to slide by and yet others do not do much at all, is imperative

for a leader in understanding what leadership approach needs to be employed and when it needs

to be employed (Mindtools.com, n.d.a). Table 2 outlines decision-making and the role of the

leader and how they relate to task (directive) behavior, relationship (supportive) behavior, and

worker readiness.

Table 2

Level of
Leadership Style Tasks Relationships Leadership Behavior Worker
Readiness
S1 - Telling High Low Leader defines roles and makes decisions R1
Leader defines roles and makes decisions
S2 - Selling High High R2
with employee input
Leader facilitates role designation and
S3 - Participating Low High decisions but employees ultimately are R3
responsible
Leaders still involved but employees decide
S4 - Delegating Low Low R4
when and how
(Mindtools.com, n.d.a)

7
 Finally, the leadership grid in Figure 2 ties the entire theory together to show how worker

readiness affects leadership behavior, which will then indicate what type of leadership style will

best fit the situation. For example, if employees are in the S1 quadrant of the of the leadership

grid they need more interaction from the leader in respects to tasks rather than relationships

(Mindtools.com, n.d.a). Employees are told “what to do and how to do it” (Mindtools.com,

n.d.a, para. 9). If a leader has employees who are in the S2 quadrant it is important for him/her

to have the employees buy-in to what needs to be done in order to stay on task (Mindtools.com,

n.d.a). This is done by providing “information and direction” (Mindtools.com, n.d.a, para. 9).

Conversely, if employees are in the S3 quadrant relationships become more important and a team

atmosphere is developed where “the leader works with the team, and shares decision-making

responsibilities” (Mindtools.com, n.d.a, para. 9). The S4 quadrant also focuses on relationships,

where the leader becomes mostly hands off and simply oversees the group’s activities and is

consulted as needed (Mindtools.com, n.d.a).

Figure 2

Source: http://nepalinanutshell.blogspot.com/2011/04/nepal-hersey-and-blanchards-situational.html

8
 Hersey and Blanchard capture the essence of situational leadership by emphasizing that

“tasks are different and each type of task requires a different leadership style” (Leadership-

central, 2013b, para. 3).

Fiedler’s Contingency Theory

Fiedler’s Contingency theory is comprised of three (3) situational factors – “leader-

member relations, task structure, and the position power of the leader” (Certo, 2013, para. 10).

Leader-member relations, how well the leader and the employees get along, is expressed as good

or poor and is deemed as the most important of the three (Dr. Sherry Robinson, personal

communication, November 20, 2013). Task structure takes into account whether or not tasks are

well-defined (structured) or if critical thinking is required (unstructured) to get the job done

(Certo, 2013). Leader power position is considered as either strong or weak, indicating what

type of authority the leader has and to what extent he/she uses that authority to get people to do

what needs to be done (see Figure 3) (Certo, 2013). Fiedler’s model outlines which type of

leadership should be used based on the situational factors involved and whether or not the

situation is highly favorable, moderately favorable, or highly unfavorable (Dr. Sherry Robinson,

personal communication, November 20, 2013).

For example, if the leader has a generally good relationship with his/her employees, but

the task structure is relatively unstructured and their position power is not that strong (as

indicated in Figure 3 by the red arrow), the situation would call for a leader that is more

relationship-oriented (Certo, 2013). The reason a more relationship-oriented leader would be the

most effective is because, as a rule according to Fielder’s model in Figure 3, when a situation is

more favorable or unfavorable the leader should be more task-oriented than relationship-oriented

as any additional focus on relationship would be counterproductive, however if the situation is

9
moderately favorable a more relationship-oriented leader may be able to effect positive change to

make the situation more favorable (Dr. Sherry Robinson, personal communication, November

20, 2013). Subsequently, if the relationship-oriented leader is successful in taking a moderately

favorable situation and making it highly favorable he/she would need to be replaced with a task-

oriented leader as it is Fiedler’s contention that the leader must fit the situation and since the

situation has changed so too must the leader (Dr. Sherry Robinson, personal communication,

November 20, 2013)..

Figure 3

Highly Favorable Moderately Favorable Highly Unfavorable

Source: http://answers.mheducation.com/business/management/supervision/supervisor-leader

As alluded to earlier, the main assertion of this contingency theory is that in order to

maximize work group performance leaders must be matched to the right leadership situation (Dr.

Sherry Robinson, personal communication, November 20, 2013). In order match the right leader

to the right situation, Fiedler developed the least preferred co-worker (LPC) test, which was used

10
to determine whether the leader was more task-oriented or more relationship-oriented

(Leadership-central, 2013a). The test relied on the leader’s attitude towards the one person in

his/her life that they have previously worked with that they had the most difficulty getting along

with and would least like to work with in the future (Dr. Sherry Robinson, personal

communication, November 20, 2013). Table 3 shows the positive and negative attributes

associated with LPC, which are scored from one (1) to eight (8). The assigned scores are then

tallied and the total score determines the leadership style based on the following scale:

 64 and above – high LPC – relationship-oriented

 58 to 63 – moderate LPC – can be either task- or relationship-oriented

 57 and below – low LPC – task-oriented

Table 3

Negative Positive Assigned

LPC Rating System
Attribute Attribute Score
Unpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Pleasant
Unfriendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Friendly
Rejecting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Accepting
Tense 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Relaxed
Distant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Close
Cold 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Warm
Hostile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Supportive
Boring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Interesting
Quarrelsome 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Harmonious
Gloomy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cheerful
Guarded 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Open
Backbiting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Loyal
Untrustworthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Trustworthy
Inconsiderate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Considerate
Nasty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Nice
Disagreeable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Agreeable
Insincere 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sincere
Unkind 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Kind
Total Score:
Source: (Dr. Sherry Robinson, personal communication, November 20, 2013)

11
 With the leader’s LPC score and leadership orientation established organizations using

Fiedler’s contingency model can effectively match their task-oriented leaders to favorable and

unfavorable situations and their relationship-oriented leaders to moderately favorable situations

to maximize their leadership power and ensure organizational success.

House’s Path-Goal Theory

The backbone of Robert House’s Path-Goal theory is “that leaders encourage and support

their followers in achieving the goals they have been set by making the path that they should take

clear and easy” (Changing Minds, 2013, para. 1). There are four (4) leadership styles that can be

used in clearing the path to success, which are dependent on two main characteristics, first is the

employees themselves – their abilities, what they enjoy doing, do they think they control their

own fates, and what motivates them, and second is the actual work environment – the uncertainty

of roles, how much stress is felt in the workplace, and whether or not the work is enjoyable (New

Charter University, 2013).

Each of the four leadership styles – directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-

oriented – has its own defining characteristics, which determines which situation it should be

applied (see Figure 4).

Figure 4

Source: https://new.edu/resources/path-goal-theory-of-leadership

12
From Figure 4 leaders can see that directive leadership is best used when employees are less self-

motivated due to a lack of specific skills needed to perform their job duties, they have a level of

uncertainty about what is required of them in terms their role, and they feel that their

environment plays a big role in why they can or cannot accomplish things (New Charter

University, 2013). However, directive leadership is not only very ineffective when dealing

highly motivated and skilled employees who need little or no supervision; it actually becomes

very counterproductive (New Charter University, 2013).

Supportive leadership is most effective when skilled employees need a moral boost,

reassurance, and encouragement because their jobs are mundane and tedious, which makes it

very stressful and difficult to display an upbeat, motivational attitude day in and day out.

Supportive leaders “treat employees well, care about them on a personal level, and they are

encouraging” (New Charter University, 2013, para. 4). This type of leadership fosters

relationships and strengthens organizational culture.

Participative leadership is form of collaborative decision-making where “employees are

involved in the making of important decisions” (New Charter University, 2013, para. 5). This

method is said to be more effective when dealing with highly skilled employees who have a

vested interest in decision outcomes and who have a need to feel empowered in the decision-

making process (New Charter University, 2013).

The final type of leadership highlighted by House’s Path-Goal theory is achievement-

oriented leadership. This leadership style is based on motivating employees by setting lofty

goals and then being the underlying force behind them reaching these goals (New Charter

University, 2013). The most difficult part of using achivement-oriented leadership is being able

13
to set goals that highly skilled and motivated employees will find challenging, but yet attainable

(Pettinger, 2007, p. 555).

Much like Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid and Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational

Leadership theories, House’s Path-Goal theory is based on the assumption that leaders can adapt

their leadership style to fit any situation that arises, this assumption is contrary to Fiedler’s

Contingency theory which states the situation must be adapted to the leader (New Charter

University, 2013). With that being said, “House admits the whole concept of path-goal needs to

be tested” (Leadership-central, 2013e, para. 5).

Vroom, Yetton, and Jago’s Normative Model

At first glance Vroom, Yetton, and Jago seem to have a very complicated method of

determining how and by whom decisions should be made. The premise of their theory is to ask a

series of eight yes or no questions to determine which type of leadership style and decision-

making process is necessary to achieve the best outcome (Dr. Sherry Robinson, personal

communication, November 20, 2013). According to Vroom, Yetton, and Jago there are three

important components of the model that are taken into account when answering the questions:

decision quality – very important or not that important, subordinate commitment – needed or not

needed, and time constraints – how much time is available (Mindtools.com, n.d.b). With these

three components in mind while answering the following questions the leader will be able to

systematically decide how to approach each decision and what leadership style will be the most

effective.

 Quality (QR) – What is the importance level of this decision?

 Commitment Requirement (CR) – How important is it that employees commit to it?

 Leader Information (LI) – Does the leader have enough information to make this
decision by him/herself?

14
  Problem Structure (ST) – Is the problem structured or unstructured?

 Commitment Probability (CP) – Is there a chance that employees will commit to this
decision if they are not asked for their input?

 Goal Congruence (GC) – Are the leader’s and the employees’ goals the same?

 Subordinate Conflict (CO) – Will employees agree with this decision?

 Subordinate Information (SI) – Do the employees have enough information to make

this decision without the leader?

Keep in mind that although there are eight questions that could be answered in any given

situation, there are some paths that will be shorter and may need answers to only a few questions

in order to achieve the proper decision-making style. This process also allows the leader to adapt

his/her leadership style to fit each situation and determine which of the five leadership styles

(Leadership-central, 2013f) listed below will best fit his/her needs:

 AI – an autocratic decision made solely by the leader.

 AII – an autocratic decision where the leader asks for information from employees, but
still makes the decision by him/herself.

 CI – a consultative decision where the leader asks for input from individual employees,
but still makes the decision by him/herself.

 CII – a consultative decision where the leader asks for input from a group of employees
and still makes the decision by him/herself, but may or may not use the input given.

 GII – a group decision where the leader asks the group for input and then allows the
group to make the decision.

For example, if a position became available in an office the best way for the leader to

determine how to fill this position would be by following the decision-making tree. By doing so

it would appear that the appropriate method to use would be the CII style of decision-making per

the path in outlined in Table 4 and graphical depiction of Figure 5.

15
Table 4

Decision Rule Answer

QR - Is the importance level of this decision high? YES
CR - Is it important that employees commit to it? YES
Does the leader have enough information to make this decision
LI - YES
by him/herself?
Is there a chance that employees will commit to this decision if
CP - NO
they are not asked for their input?
GC - Are the leader’s and the employees’ goals the same? YES
Do the employees have enough information to make this
SI - NO
decision without the leader?

Figure 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
AII
yes yes
CP SI GII
no yes no
yes CII
LI GC no
yes no GII
CR ST CO CII
yes AII
QR no
CI
no LI CII
CR
AI
(Mindtools.com, n.d.b), (Dr. Sherry Robinson, personal communication, November 20, 2013)

The CII decision allows the leader to engage his/her employees in the interviewing

process, ask for their input on the applicants, and then potentially use that input to make the final

decision on who is the best candidate for the position. This process may give the employees a

sense of buy-in and may lead to better employee relations with the new hire. Ultimately the CII

leadership style decision gives employees a voice and a sense of empowerment regardless of the

16
decision made by the leader. Although the feeling of buy-in is usually not unanimous – someone

always thinks their thoughts and input do not matter – knowing they have been heard goes a long

way in terms of morale and employee/leader relations.

Using the decision tree means that leaders are more flexible and willing to share the task

of decision-making if the circumstances call for it. However, there will always be those

instances where the decision will lie solely with the leader. By using the series of questions and

navigating through the decision tree it takes the guess work out of the decision-making process

and allows leaders to concentrate on adapting their leadership style to each situation as it arises.

Leadership Theories – Pros and Cons

When debating which leadership theory to use to establish a leadership style, leaders

should first weigh the pros against the cons of each theory outlined in the following tables (See

Table 5 through Table 9). The information in these tables along with the comprehensive

summary of each theory presented previously will help leaders evaluate the leadership style that

best defines them. Based on this information leaders will be able to more succinctly identify

where they fall in respect to task-orientation and relationship-orientation and therefore be able to

make a more educated decision about which leadership theory best fits their personality as well

as the situation.

Table 5 – Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid

Pros Cons
~Performance evaluation ~Effectiveness not proven
~Still used today (almost 50 years ~No internal or external variables used
later)
~Self-analysis of leadership style ~Work environment not taken into account
~Potential for flawed self-assessment
Source: http://www.leadership-central.com/managerial-grid.html#axzz2hvU9cqMK

17
 Table 6 – Hersey and Blanchard Situational Leadership
Pros Cons
~Easy to apply ~May not be applicable to everyone
~Simple scales in determining ~Theory may not be applicable to certain
leadership style situations
~Focuses on maturity and competence ~Theory has not lived up to its hype
of the group
Source: http://www.leadership-central.com/situational-leadership-theory.html#axzz2mvfg0b7K

Table 7 – Fiedler’s Contingency Theory

Pros Cons
~Well researched ~Too subjective and relative
~Has a task to task and relationship to ~LPC score does not apply to all groups
relationship leadership approach
~Flexible ~May not be valid in all situations
Source: http://www.leadership-central.com/fiedler's-contingency-theory.html#axzz2mvfg0b7K

Table 8 – House’s Path-Goal Theory

Pros Cons
~Effective when time is of the essence ~Undemocratic
~Flexible ~Success is contingent on leader’s abilities
~Very useful in groups ~Irrational leader may lead group down
the wrong path
~Easy to understand and put into ~Too dependent on leader
practice
Source: http://www.leadership-central.com/path-goal-theory.html#axzz2mvfg0b7K

Table 9 – Vroom, Yetton, and Jago’s Normative Model

Pros Cons
~Flexibility in decision making ~May not be able to be used in large
groups
~Step-by-step decision making ~Decision making ignorant to change
process; takes out guess work
~Objective ~Decision making questions not specific
enough
Source: http://www.leadership-central.com/Vroom-Yetton-Jago-decision-making-model-of-
leadership.html#axzz2mvfg0b7K

18
 According to Dr. Sherry Robinson, Associate Professor of Business Administration at

Penn State Hazleton, leadership theories are important to study and to learn, but they are not to

be thought of as the end-all, be-all in classifying leaders into one theory or another. She proffers

that there are many factors in every situation that need to be considered and even after all the

factors have been reviewed, it will always depend which theory and leadership style should be

used and whether or not it will produce the desired outcome as most of the leadership theories do

not take any outside factors into account.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Task-Oriented Leadership

A leader who exhibits a task-oriented leadership style is defined as one who focuses on

“ensuring that subordinates perform at a high level and focus on task accomplishment” (Jones &

George, 2008, p. 569). The typical task master is far more conerned with what is getting done

than about who is doing it, unless of course ‘who is doing it’ is not being productive – then who

is doing the job becomes an important issue for the task-oriented leader. This is the case because

as a rule high achievers possess task-oriented characteristics (Pettinger, 2007, p. 555) and if the

tasks are not be accomplished in a timely manner the task-oriented leader is not happy and that

unhappiness will trickle down to his/her subordinates.

There are advantages and disadvantages related to the task-oriented leadership style. The

advantages are that leaders are very deadline oriented, well organized, production and quality

oriented, and provide employees with well-defined roles and processes, all of which allows the

task-oriented leader to thrive and be more productive in structured environments (Basu, 2013;

see also Kokemuller, 2013). These advantages lead to the “high levels of productivity and

quality” (Basu, 2013, para. 3) that are vital to organizational success in today’s highly

competitive marketplace.

19
 Being a task-oriented leader however, does not always equate to positive results.

Employees who work for task-oriented leaders tend to be fearful of showing any creativity,

which ultimately stunts innovation and progress and consequently leads to low morale as

employees feel stifled by the well-defined roles and processes setforth by the leader (Basu, 2013;

see also Kokemuller, 2013). Another disadvantage of task-oriented leadership is high employee

turnover (Basu, 2013) and increased absenteeism, which leads to reduced production and loss of

revenue.

For example, a leader who repeatedly denies employees time off to attend Halloween

parades, their children’s school program, to go on vacation, and similar events of that nature

because production will suffer weakens the relationship with his/her employees. As a result,

employees will adopt the habit of not informing the leader that they would like time off, which is

helpful in enabling the unit to prepare for the absence and make arrangements for the proper

coverage. Employees will simply call off sick leaving the leader to scramble for personnel,

which not only adversely affects the organization, but the other employees as well. As a result

employees’ morale will be lower and the potential for employee turnover could increase. As a

rule employees would rather know they have to come into work early or stay late well in advance

rather than be asked at the last minute to do so.

As a task-oriented leader showing a little compassion for employees’ personal needs

could potentially go a long way in terms of accomplishing tasks, achieving production goals, and

boosting employee morale.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Relationship-Oriented Leadership

Relationship-oriented leadership style is referred to as “having high-quality interpersonal

relationships with subordinates” (Jones & George, 2008, p. 569). As a relationship-oriented

20
leader one can fall into one of two categories of leadership: 1) participative or 2) delegative

(Pirraglia, 2013).

Participative leadership is a collaborative leadership style in that employees are involved

in the decision-making process as vital sources of input, knowledge, and feedback, but the final

decisions lay with the leader (Pirraglia, 2013). Although this type of relationship-oriented

leadership style has positive conotations for employees, it “requires strong leaders to maintain

positivity, control and performance (Pirraglia, 2013, para 2).

Delegative leadership allows select employees to make final decisions with little or no

input from the leader (Pirraglia, 2013). On its own delegative leadership poses some

disadvantages to relationship-oriented leaders simply bcause it creates “confusion regarding job

duties and responsibilities” (Pirraglia, 2013, para 3).

Some advantages and disadvantages to relationship-oriented leadership can, ironically

enough, have the same effect as the advantages and disadvantages of task-oriented leadership. In

a relationship-oriented atmosphere employees are more involved with the decision-making

process, workplace improvement ideas, and process improvement ideas (Pirraglia, 2013). When

employees feel empowered and feel that their voices are being heard their overall attitude is

positively affected. This leads to increased production, an increase in revenue, and reduced

turnover.

Just because employees are empowered and have a voice does not mean that everyone

working for the relationship-oriented leader is not walking around with rose colored glasses – too

many cooks do not necessarily make a good soup. If employees are too involved the

consequences can lead to poor outcomes because the leader has relinquished too much control,

21
which generally “leads to lower performance, high employee turnover, customer dissatisfaction

and decrease profitability” (Pirraglia, 2013, para. 5).

In stark contrast to the task-oriented leader who consistently denies employees time off,

the relationship-oriented leader who without fail allows employees to come and go as they please

will have the same advers effects on production, employee morale, and turnover rates. Even

though employees are more willing to stay late and come in early when they know in advance

that it is required of them their attitudes will still be effected, especially if the same few are

always expected to cover for the same people taking off. Most employees enjoy an average

amount of overtime, but too much of anything is never a good thing.

As a relationship-oriented leader being a little more task-oriented will certainly lead to

higher employee moral, better production numbers and quality, and reduced turnover.

How to and Why to Achieve a Balance

When thinking about the finding the balance between task-oriented and relationship-

oriented leadership the optimal split does not necessarily mean that the leader will practice fifty

percentage (50%) task behavior and fifty percent (50%) relationship behavior. The

task/relationship behavior split may be 30%/70%, 60%/40%, or may even be 95%/5%. The fact

of the matter is that each situation needs to be assessed to determine what the harmonious

balance needed will be to produce a positive outcome. There is not magic formula that can be

used to make the balance ratio clear, but if leaders utilize the leadership theories that are

available to them they will certainly have a better understanding of their dominant leadership

style and how to effectively adapt that style to any given situation.

The first thing that needs to be done when trying to figure out how to find a balance

between task-oriented leadership and relationship-orientation is for the leader to determine

whether he/she is more task-oriented or relationship-oriented. Once the dominant leadership

22
style has been established he/she must start to intertwine the use of both orientations in a way

that creates the desired balance, which can be achieved by following the simple advice offered

next.

“In the beginning, they recognize the team’s need for structure and create a foundation
that is both firm and flexible. Once the task-oriented building blocks are in place and
members begin to take risks by sharing information and speaking honestly about the task,
the leader can shift to a relationship orientation. When this shift is successful, the leader
strikes the right balance between leading and following the team’s emerging leaders;
knowing when to make decisions and when to yield to the team, not the leader.” (James,
2009, para 4).

For people who are more task oriented perhaps looking at “becoming more relationship oriented”

as a task to be completed will give them the edge they need to evoke a more relationship oriented

philosophy without compromising their task orientation.

Secondly, it is important to know why finding this balance between tasks and

relationships will be pivotal to becoming a successful leader. The main reason is, it will allow

the leader to identify, understand, and focus on his/her strengths and weaknesses (Raines, 2013).

There are four (4) areas that are important for a leader to focus on and to be sure that he/she

knows how to adapt to in order to successfully find his/her leadership balance. They are work

environment, communication, leadership skills, and workplace challenges (Raines, 2013).

Having a comprehensive understanding of the the leadership style that fits the work

environment will allow the leader to “select work environments where your style would be an

asset” (Raines, 2013, para. 2). For example, a leader with a task-oriented leadership style would

be most effective in a manufacturing facility where the goal is to have high output with

consistent quality. Whereas a leader with a relationship-oriented leadership style would not be

suitable for that situation as it does not require creativity or inventiveness. He/she would

probably feel unfulfilled and as a result would soon be looking down another career path.

23
 The second area that is important to understanding one’s leadership style has to do with

communication skills. In order to communicate more effectively, the leader needs to identify

his/her leadership style and share it his/her employees so that everyone has a better

understanding of leader’s “perspective and how to work effectively” (Raines, 2013, para. 3)

together. For instance, a task-oriented leader may be more abrupt and short when disseminating

information to his/her employees. This does not mean that the information is not meaningful or

important, but as a task-oriented leader he/she is already looking to start the next project. On the

other hand, a relationship-oriented leader would most likely convey the information, wait for

feedback from the employee, and then expect a full discussion to ensue. As an employee

knowing how to communicate both ways with the leader is important, just as it is important for

the leader to understand his/her strengths and weaknesses to communicate more effectively with

his/her staff (Raines, 2013).

Thirdly, it is no surprise that in order for a leader to hone his/her leadership skills he/she

must first know his/her leadership style and “build upon the weaknesses and strengths” (Raines,

2013, para. 4) associated with it. By developing one’s strengths and turning one’s weaknesses

into areas of opportunity a leader can learn to be a better leader. As an example, suppose a

relationship-oriented leader had trouble with Employee Y who simply showed no initiative, but

the leader still put Employee Y in charge of creating a new process for building Product X.

Without any type of screening to see if this employee was the right person for the job, the leader

just tasked Employee Y with completing this task. As it turns out the Employee Y was more

effective at doing more task related job functions, but because one of the leader’s weaknesses

was identifying task-oriented employees and assigning work accordingly the wrong person got

24
assigned to the wrong job. In this case if the leader would have had better knowledge of his/her

weakness in that area the new process for Product X would have been completed on time.

The last area that a leader needs to have full understanding of his/her strengths and

weaknesses is workplace challenges. Every workplace has its fair share of challenges to be

addressed and overcome, but if the leader has a good working knowledge his/her leadership style

he/she can become part of the solution instead of being part of the problem. By relying on

his/her strengths a positive outcome can be realized (Raines, 2013). For example, Company Z

has a very large high profile account with Company A, but Company A has not been happy with

the way Company Z has been handling its account. Would it be best to assign a newly hired

account manager to this floundering account or would it be more effective to pull a more

seasoned account manager off other high profile accounts? The challenge here is if the more

seasoned account manager is chosen his/her other accounts would suffer and if the newby is

chosen there is a good chance his/her lack of experience would lead to losing the account. By

identifying the leader’s dominant leadership style and focusing on his/her strengths may indicate

that he/she would be the best person to take over the account until Company A is happy with the

attention Company Z is now providing (Raines, 2013).

With the how to and why to find a balance between task-oriented leadership and

relationship-oriented leadership explained and the knowledge that toggling back and forth

between each orientation is the most effective leadership style (James, 2009), leaders can truly

become the leader they aspire to be.

In conclusion, the advantages and disadvantages laid out in the previous sections can

have both positive and negative affects on the organization as well as the overall attitude of the

employees, production levels, and financial gains, therefore leaders must make a conscious effort

25
to recognize their leadership style, how it affects their employees, and be sure to adapt it to each

situation to be most effective. This is done by finding the perfect balance between task-oriented

and relationship-oriented leadership styles.

My Epiphany

As a task-oriented person I should perhaps look at ‘becoming more relationship-oriented’

as a just another task to be completed. This will give me the edge I need to evoke a more

relationship-oriented philosophy without compromising my task-orientation.

26
Works Cited
Avolio, B. W. (2009). Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions. Retrieved from
Annual Reviews.org:
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621

Basu, C. (2013). The Strengths & Weaknesses of a Task-Oriented Leadership Style. Retrieved from Chron:
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/strengths-weaknesses-taskoriented-leadership-style-
37835.html

Certo, S. (2013). The Supervisor as Leader. Retrieved from McGraw-Hill Education Answers:
http://answers.mheducation.com/business/management/supervision/supervisor-leader

Changing Minds. (2013). Path-Goal Theory of Leadership. Retrieved from Chaning Minds.org:
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/styles/path_goal_leadership.htm

James, S. R. (2009, September 30). Task Oriented Leaders, Relationship Oriented Leaders, Or Both?
Retrieved from Ezinearticles.com: http://ezinearticles.com/?Task-Oriented-Leaders,-
Relationship-Oriented-Leaders,-Or-Both?&id=3012024

Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (2008). Contemporary Management, 5th Edition. New York:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Kokemuller, N. (2013). The Strengths & Weaknesses of a Task-Oriented Leadership Style. Retrieved from
azcentral.com: http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/strengths-weaknesses-taskoriented-
leadership-style-2519.html

Leadership-central. (2013a). Feidler's Contingency Theory. Retrieved from Leadership-central.com:

http://www.leadership-central.com/fiedler's-contingency-theory.html#axzz2hvU9cqMK

Leadership-central. (2013b). Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory. Retrieved from Leaderhip-

central.com: http://www.leadership-central.com/situational-leadership-
theory.html#axzz2hvU9cqMK

Leadership-central. (2013c). Leadership Theories. Retrieved from Leadership-central.com:

http://www.leadership-central.com/leadership-theories.html#axzz2m9NZ9wGf

Leadership-central. (2013d). Managerial Grid Model - Also known as Leadership Grid. Retrieved from
Leadership-central.com: http://www.leadership-central.com/managerial-
grid.html#axzz2hvU9cqMK

Leadership-central. (2013e). Path-Goal Theory - Robert House. Retrieved from Leadership-central.com:

http://www.leadership-central.com/path-goal-theory.html#axzz2hvU9cqMK

A
Leadership-central. (2013f). Vroom-Yetton-Jago Decision-making Model of Leadership. Retrieved from
Leadership-central.com: http://www.leadership-central.com/Vroom-Yetton-Jago-decision-
making-model-of-leadership.html#axzz2hvU9cqMK

Mindtools.com. (2013). The Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid, Balancing Task- and People-Oriented
Leadership. Retrieved from Mindtools:
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_73.htm

Mindtools.com. (n.d.a). The Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory. Retrieved from Mindtools:
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_44.htm

Mindtools.com. (n.d.b). The Vroom-Yetton-Jago Decision Model: Deciding how to Decide. Retrieved from
Mindtools: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_91.htm

Nemaei, B. (2012, March). The Impact of Participative Leadership on Employee's Motivation, Job
Satisfaction, and Innovation. Retrieved from The British University in Dubai:
http://bspace.buid.ac.ae/bitstream/handle/1234/343/80080.pdf?sequence=1

Nepal. (2011, April 13). Nepal: Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Theory. Retrieved from Nepal in a Nut-
Shell!: http://nepalinanutshell.blogspot.com/2011/04/nepal-hersey-and-blanchards-
situational.html

New Charter University. (2013). Unit 12 Leading People Within Organizations. Retrieved from New
Charter Univeristy - MG641 Leadership and Organizational Behavior:
https://new.edu/resources/path-goal-theory-of-leadership

Pettinger, R. (2007). Introduction to Management, 4th Edition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Pirraglia, W. (2013). Advantages & Disadvantages of People-Oriented Leadership Styles. Retrieved from
Chron: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-disadvantages-peopleoriented-leadership-
styles-10299.html

Raines, S. (2013). The Advantages of Knowing Your Leadership Style. Retrieved from Chron.com:
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-knowing-leadership-style-18924.html

Robinson, D. S. (2013, November 20). Associate Professor of Business Administration. (P. Lombard,
Interviewer)