Forsyth relationship between leadership and management pdf “a descriptive model of leadership which maintains that most leadership behaviors can be classified as performance maintenance or relationship maintenances. Task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership are two models that are often compared, as they are known to produce varying outcomes under different circumstances. Task-oriented leaders focus on getting the necessary task, or series of tasks, in hand in order to achieve a goal. These leaders are typically less concerned with the idea of catering to employees and more concerned with finding the step-by-step solution required to meet specific goals.
They will often actively define the work and the roles required, put structures in place, and plan, organize, and monitor progress within the team. The advantage of task-oriented leadership is that it ensures that deadlines are met and jobs are completed, and it’s especially useful for team members who don’t manage their time well. Additionally, these types of leaders tend to exemplify a strong understanding of how to get the job done, focusing on the necessary workplace procedures and delegating work accordingly to ensure that everything gets done in a timely and productive manner. However, because task-oriented leaders don’t tend to think much about their team’s well-being, this approach can suffer many of the flaws of autocratic leadership, including causing motivation and retention problems.
Relationship-oriented leaders are focused on supporting, motivating and developing the people on their teams and the relationships within. This style of leadership encourages good teamwork and collaboration, through fostering positive relationships and good communication. Relationship-oriented leaders prioritize the welfare of everyone in the group, and will place time and effort in meeting the individual needs of everyone involved. This may involve offering incentives like bonuses, providing mediation to deal with workplace or classroom conflicts, having more casual interactions with team members to learn about their strengths and weaknesses, creating a non-competitive and transparent work environment, or just leading in a personable or encouraging manner. The benefits of relationship-oriented leadership is that team members are in a setting where the leader cares about their well-being. Relationship-oriented leaders understand that building positive productivity requires a positive environment where individuals feel driven.
Personal conflicts, dissatisfaction with a job, resentment and even boredom can severely drive down productivity, so these types of leaders put people first to ensure that such problems stay at a minimum. Additionally, team members may be more willing to take risks, because they know that the leader will provide the support if needed. The downside of relationship-oriented leadership is that, if taken too far, the development of team chemistry may detract from the actual tasks and goals at hand. The term “people-oriented” is used synonymously, whilst in a business setting, this approach may also be referred to as “employee-oriented”. However, a common finding is that relationship-oriented leadership will generate greater cohesion within groups, as well as greater team learning. It is also supported that relationship-oriented leadership has stronger individual impact, and a positive effect on self-efficacy.
2006 integrated a wide spectrum of theoretical and empirical studies, and looked at the effects of leadership behaviors through multiple dimensions, including breaking down the specifics of task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership into subgroups such as “initiating structure”, “consideration”, and “empowerment”. It has also been theorized that groups who perceive their leaders as more task-oriented achieve higher levels of task accomplishment. A leader may find that behaviors focusing on nurturing interpersonal relationships, or coordinating tasks and initiating structure, are not required in every situation. A study by Kerr and Jermier found that some contextual factors may negate the need for either task oriented or relationship oriented leadership behaviors, such as specific characteristics of group members, the task, or the organization. Groups composed of members who have a “professional” orientation or members who do not necessarily value group rewards, can neutralize or negate both task and relationship oriented leadership. Also, individuals who are highly trained and capable, or those who have a need for independence, may not require that their leader focus on task coordination. When the task is clear and routine, “methodologically invariant,” or involves automatic feedback about accomplishment, task oriented leadership may be unnecessary.
Furthermore, a task that is intrinsically satisfying can remove the need for relationship oriented leadership behaviors. The characteristics of organized rewards, cohesive work groups, and physical distance have also been shown to negate the need for relationship oriented leadership styles. Leader-Member Relations, referring to the degree of mutual trust, respect and confidence between the leader and the subordinates. Task Structure, referring to the extent to which group tasks are clear and structured.
Leader Position Power, referring to the power inherent in the leader’s position itself. When there is a good leader-member relation, a highly structured task, and high leader position power, the situation is considered a “favorable situation. Fiedler found that low-LPC leaders are more effective in extremely favourable or unfavourable situations, whereas high-LPC leaders perform best in situations with intermediate favourability. An experiment was conducted in 1972 with a total of 128 United States Military cadets in 4-man groups, to test the predictive validity of Fiedler’s contingency model of leadership effectiveness.