The Blake and Mouton's Managerial (Leadership) Grid

This article reffers mainly to

Abstract

Managing a project successfully is not a trivial task and it requires capable managers. In Project Management the terms "Manager" and "Leader" are often used with the same meaning. However, several theories about the differences between Management and Leadership have been developed over the years. Even defining exactly what characterizes a good leader is not an easy task and academics have been trying for decades to provide a definition. Despite these attempts, scholars could not find a universal definition and only theories are available.

One of the most relevant theories was firstly introduced by Blake and Mouton in the early 1960 and it has been revised by the authors for more than two decades. The original name of this theory was "The Managerial Grid", however, it was renamed "The Leadership Grid" to better describe its relevance in the Leadership field. It belongs to the group of theories that follow the Behavioral approach. They emphasize what is the behavior of the leader in the activity of leading an organization. Other relevant perspectives are the Trait approach, which is mainly focused on the personality of the leader, and the Skills approach, which emphasizes his/her capabilities.

The Leadership Grid is a matrix that shows how leaders can be effective in leading an organization by taking into account two parameters: Concern for results and Concern for people. The first one is represented on the x-axis and the second one on the y-axis of this 9x9 matrix. The combinations of the respective relevance of these two factors define five main approaches to leadership.

This article aims to describe the main aspects of this theory together with its applications, and its limitations. Appropriate documentation for further readings is also included.

Introduction

Leadership and Management are often considered interchangeable terms. Even if it is true that these two fields have some similarities, it is also relevant to analyze their differences. Over the years, many authors have tried to define clearly the characteristics of a manager and a leader and which are the respective roles in an organization. According to Fayol (1916), the managerial role can be summarized in five functions: Planning, Organizing, Command, Coordination, and Control. In other words, a manager is responsible to provide stability and order to a company. On the contrary, leadership is about guiding the organization in the process of changing and adapting to a new situation. So, Management and Leadership are not the same, however, they are both relevant to making a company successful.

Managerial power usually comes from the position of the manager in the organizational structure. The authority does not come from personal skills or abilities, it is determined by a formal structure in the company. Identifying from where the authority of a leader comes from is not as easy and different theories argue for different sources. One of the most famous questions in the Leadership field is "Are Leaders born or made?" and it has not a universal answer.

The trait approach supports the theory that Leaders are born and only a few people have these innate qualities. It was the first attempt to define why some are better than others in leading a group and these efforts led to the Big Five personalities framework. During the years, this approach led also to some failures. For these deadends, scholars started to develop theories based on the idea that good leadership comes from the way the leader behaves and that this ability can be trained. This is the fundamental idea of the Behavioral approach and the Leadership Grid belongs to this group of theories. However, neither traits nor behaviors can guarantee success. Supporters of the Contingency approach believe that the context matters as well.

Many different theories that belong to the described approaches are available. However, this article aims to describe the applications and limitations of the Leadership Grid in this context.