Course Code: MGN572 Course Title: Individual dynamics and

Leadership
Course Instructor: Preet Kanwal Student’s Reg. No: 11900221

Academic Task No.: CA3 Academic Task Title: Assignment 3

Date of Allotment: 19 March 2021 Date of submission: 11 April 2021

Learning Outcomes: To analyse a field of study by applying the theoretical concepts to real life
situations. To understand about managerial grid, contingency and behavioural theories of
leadership

Declaration:
I declare that this assignment is my individual work. I have not copied it from any other
student’s work or from any other source except where due acknowledgement is made
explicitly in the text, nor has any part been written for me by any other person.

Student’s Signature: Chethan S N

Evaluator’s Comments (For Instructor’s use only)

General Observation Suggestions for Improvement Best part of assignment

Evaluator’s Signature and Date: ______________

Marks Obtained: ______________ Max. Marks: ______________
1. Discuss Managerial Grid in detail.
The Managerial Grid is one of the most enduring Behavioural theories of Leadership
that was first propounded in 1965 and is still being used in Leadership and team
building training. It is simple to understand and apply and very flexible. The model is
an excellent way to map out different leadership styles, and to study the leadership
style of leaders and managers. The model is based on a grid on which the concern for
production is located on the X-axis and the concern for people is located on the Y-
axis. Based on the emphasis on production or people 5 distinct leadership styles are
identified. Later, the authors Blake & Mouton identified two other leadership styles
adding to a total of 7 distinct leadership styles.
As leadership is a very complicated process, Blake and Mouton broke down the
process of leadership into 6 distinct elements on which the various leadership styles
are assessed. These 6 elements of leadership are:
Conflict solving,
Initiative,
Inquiry,
Advocacy,
Decision Making and
Critique

Country club leadership: High concern for people and low concern for production.
A leader with a high concern for people and low concern for production focuses
totally on maintaining harmonious working relationship in his team and does not
allow any conflicts to develop; rather, he avoids conflicts, as these have the potential
to derail his careful attempts at building a harmonious team with excellent inter-
personal relations. Such a boss is bound to be immensely liked but he is not likely to
gain the respect of others. Although this style leads to a friendly and pleasant
atmosphere, but it is not likely to translate into high results for the organization due to
the poor focus on obtaining results as building and maintaining good relations
becomes the end in itself rather than a means to an end—namely high production.
Produce or Perish Leadership: High Concern for Production/Low Concern for
People.
The country club leadership provides strong leadership that usually produces good
results. It is a very effective style for short-term results even though it usually fails to
energise the other team members and does not win their willing cooperation. It works
well only when the boss is right as it has the rather unfortunate side- effect of shutting
off valuable inputs from subordinates who may be better informed on crucial matters
than the leader himself. The reason why individuals adopt this style is because they
assume that the two concerns - concern for production and concern for people, are
contradictory in nature and are mutually exclusive. Therefore, a country club leader
approaches leadership as a black/white dilemma, in which to achieve one
(production), the other (people) must necessarily be sacrificed. This is the most
common style of leadership exhibited in organizations.

Middle of the Road Leadership: Medium Concern for Production/Medium Concern

for People;
A Middle of Road Leadership is essentially a compromise artist; he seeks a delicate
equilibrium between the needs for production and the needs of people. He believes in
conformity and is guided by official protocol and rules and regulations. This leads to a
stultifying bureaucracy with all its attendant consequences: decisions are based on
majority rather than on what is correct so along as the majority are in its favour,
promotions are based on seniority rather than merit, creativity is at its nadir since
being innovative or creative or indulging in out-of-box thinking is different, it is
discouraged. Conflict is resolved through compromise.

Impoverished Leadership: Low Concern for Production/ Low Concern for People;
This is an ineffective leader. This type of leader has a very low concern for people ad
an equally low concern for production; in other words he is not interested in doing
anything proactive and merely goes about the motions and lacks any real
commitment. His main intention is to be “visible” but mentally he is absent. This
leader is always present and on time; he doesn’t abuse organization rules and doesn’t
intentionally inconvenience others. He is probably a nice person and not disliked by
others and is also reasonably capable but is just not mentally present and does the bare
minimum.
However, sooner or later, this type of leader will get into trouble as the organization
will eventually notice that his presence or absence makes little difference.

Team Leadership: High Concern for Production/High Concern for People:

As the title suggests, this is the best style of leadership according to the Grid model
where high concern for production is balanced by an equally high concern of people;
it is a style which emphasizes achieving of results through and by people, i.e. through
the active involvement of people. This leader recognizes the limitations that any
single individual has, in terms of competency and knowledge, to take decisions on all
matters and intrinsically acknowledges the potential those other individuals, even
those working under him, have of being able to help in decision making through the
application of collective wisdom. The result is that people working under such leaders
are highly motivated and energized and willingly give their best towards achieving
targets and consequently the team achieves synergy through such collective efforts.
Whereas, in the case of the assertive and forceful leader, as exemplified by the 9,1
leadership style, the efforts of the team are focused towards achieving the targets by
following the methods outlined by the leader with very little scope for creativity and
innovation and therefore morale is low although results are still achieved despite the
poor morale; but in the process this type of leadership style destroys team spirit.

Additional styles of leadership:

Later, the authors realized the above 5 styles do not capture all the styles of leadership
and introduced two other styles of leadership
as given below. Although these two styles of leadership cannot be plotted on the Grid
but they are based on the concepts of the Grid, i.e. the concern for people and the
concern for production.
The Opportunist-
As the eponymous title suggests, the Opportunist is just that— an opportunist and
does not have any fixed grid style which can be plotted on the Grid. Instead, he
operates according to the grid style of the other party. It all depends on what is
deemed to be the most effective style in getting what you want when operating with
others. This type of leader is motivated solely by self-interest and will follow any
style of leadership as long as it gets him results. The only difference is that he focuses
on the results that will suit him personally;
 If the organization benefits, it is merely a by-product and not the main intention.
Organization goals are considered only when they are congruent with his self-interest.
Otherwise the goals of the organization are of little importance to the opportunist.
The Paternalist “Getting People to worship the Ground You walk on”
The Paternalist is very often confused with the Team leadership style but there
is a vital difference—with the Paternalist, although there is equal concern for people
and for production, yet it is based on getting people to look up to you as the father
figure, somewhat like a “Godfather” or Guru. In this style of leadership people are
rewarded only if they willingly follow his every wish and advice and look up to him
and almost indulge in hero-worship. If team members display this type of behaviour
they are rewarded in a paternalistic way and they are kept happy and satisfied and are
thus motivated to put in greater efforts so long as they are aimed at boosting the
public stature of their leader. As a spin off, organization goals are achieved efficiently
but they are achieved not ‘for the organization’ but ‘for the leader’. There is thus, a
misleading sense of team morale and espirit-de-corps but it is all for the leader and
not for the organization; the moment such a leader is removed from the spot the
people feel lost and the team disintegrates.

2. Discuss in detail the application of contingency theories in Indian

context.
Following are the cases when contingency approaches are applied
1. Contingency viewpoint in action is a manager facing a situation with an employee
who regularly shows up late to work. A manager could have a written protocol for this
situation in which there is only one option: give the employee notice. Under the
contingency viewpoint, however, the manager may decide to better understand the
situation by talking to the employee about why s/he is late to work and then deciding
on the most effective and appropriate course of action. The value in this lies in the
information the manager acquires about the employee: maybe there are extenuating
circumstances that can be relatively easy to work around. In this case, the contingency
approach allows the employee to keep her/his job and saves the manager from going
through the time and trouble to dismiss one employee and hire another.
 A leader’s ability to manage under the contingency viewpoint depends largely on the
nature of the environment and how the organization relates to the environment.
Therefore, the organizational structure is a major component of the approach that
management may take in resolving problems under contingency theory.
2. A leader was presented with a test and asked to rate the team member that they least
prefer to interact with.  While the exercise might not call out a specific team member
directly, putting a test like this into practice would likely not support positive morale
in the organization. There are other issues with the “LPC” as well. “The instructions
on the LPC scale are not clear; they do not fully explain how the respondent is to
select his or her least preferred co-worker. Some respondents may get confused
between their least like co-worker and their least preferred co-worker.” The tool is not
specific in how one should determine their ratings, or specific enough on what the
ratings may mean.
3. When managers at Natural’s (a food chain) addressed the question of what would
work best for its restaurants they redefined business based on the simple premise that
customers value food service and the physical appearance of the restaurant. To
implement the new customers focused goals, the company recruited new managers
who were committed to creating or delivering goods that customer value and who
could coach and support staff in the new direction. To concentrate on customers, Taco
Bell outsourced much of the assembly-line food preparation, such as shredding
lettuce, allowing employees to focus on customers. As a result it has enjoyed a 60
percept growth in sales at company owned stores. Other fast food restaurants might
base their business on different situational factors, by the contingency view.
4. Vroom and Jago reported accumulated evidence that decisions following the decision
tree were almost twice as likely to be successful than decisions that did not use the
prescriptions advocated by the model. Furthermore, leaders who make decisions
following the decision tree tend to receive favourable ratings from subordinates.
Despite solid empirical evidence validating the model, scholars have noted various
limitations. For example, while acknowledging the utility of the model, Sternberg
questioned whether leaders are able to accurately answer the questions posed by the
decision tree. Overall, the normative decision model contributes an understanding of
decision-making processes that underscores the significance of the situation.
3. Explain the various behavioural theories of leadership in detail.
Behavioural Theory of leadership is a big leap from Trait Theory, as it was developed
scientifically by conducting behaviour focused studies. The theory emphasizes that
leadership capability can be learned, rather than being inherent. This theory is based
on the principle that a leader's behaviours can be conditioned in a manner that one can
have a specific response to specific stimuli.
Behavioural Theories of Leadership, also known as “The style approach to
leadership” focuses on the behaviour of the leader and what leaders do and how they
act. In the 1940s, two parallel studies on leadership were in progress, one based on
traits displayed by leaders, another on the behaviours exhibited by leaders.
 Traits theory assumes that leaders are born, rather than made
 Trait theory concentrates on, what the leaders are
 Great Man Theory and Traits Theory are focused on intrinsic personal
characteristics
 Behavioural theories are based upon the belief that great leaders are made, not
born
 Behavioural theories concentrate on, what leaders do
 Behavioural approach is based on the leader's beliefs, values, and interpersonal
relations
 Considers the Leader's attitude, behaviour, opinion, and concern about his
followers/organization
 Studies leadership behaviour from the point of view of motivation,
supervision, and authority
 Behavioural theories assume that specific behavioural patterns of leaders can
be acquired
 People can learn to become leaders through teaching and observation.

Behavioural Theory of Leadership is a leadership theory that considers the

observable actions and reactions of leaders and followers in a given situation.
Behavioural theories focus on how leaders behave and assume that leaders can be
made, rather than born, and successful leadership is based on definable, learnable
behaviour. Behavioural theories of leadership are classified as such because they
focus on the study of specific behaviours of a leader.
 For behavioural theorists, a leader behaviour is the best predictor of his
leadership influences and as a result, is the best determinant of his or her leadership
success. These theories concentrate on what leaders actually do rather than on their
qualities. Different patterns of behaviour are observed and categorized as 'styles of
leadership'. This area has probably attracted the most attention from practicing
managers.

While there are dozens of leadership theories and psychology, there are a few
that are more well-known. These more common leadership theories are important to
understand and recognize, especially if you currently are, or are studying to be
business leader in the future. Understanding psychological and social impacts of
effective leadership will help you determine the kind of leader you want to be.

 Behavioural theory: The behavioural leadership theory focuses on how leaders

behave, and assumes that these traits can be copied by other leaders. Sometimes called
the style theory, it suggests that leaders aren’t born successful, but can be created
based on learnable behaviour. Behavioural theories of leadership focus heavily on the
actions of a leader—this theory suggests that the best predictor of leadership success
is viewing how a leader acts. Action rather than qualities are the focal points of
behavioural learning theory. Patterns of behaviour are observed and categorized as
“styles of leadership” in this theory. Some of the styles of leadership include task-
oriented leaders, people-oriented leaders, country club leaders, status-quo leaders,
dictatorial leaders, and more. At the end of the day, the actions and actual behaviours
of a leader are what defines success in this theory.

The behavioural theory has many advantages primarily that leaders can learn
and decide what actions they want to implement to become the kind of leader they
want to be. It allows leaders to be flexible and adapt based on their circumstances.
Another great benefit of this leadership style is that it suggests anyone is capable of
becoming a leader. Some disadvantages of the behavioural theory are that while it
allows flexibility, it doesn’t directly suggest how to behave in certain circumstances.
There are dozens of leadership styles that stem from the behavioural theory, but there
isn’t a right one for every circumstance. 
 A great example of the behavioural theory is looking at a task-oriented leader
vs. a people-oriented leader. If there’s a problem with a team, a task-oriented leader
will look at the process to see if something needs to be adjusted with the workflow. A
people-oriented leader will look at the individuals and go right to them, asking what
the issue is. Whatever behaviours you choose the behavioural leadership theory helps
leaders focus on their actions and utilize their decisions to be a great leader.

 Contingency theory: The contingency leadership theory, sometimes called

situational theory, focuses on the context of a leader. These theories look at the
situational effects of the success or failure or a leader. A leader’s effectiveness is
directly determined by the situational context. While a leader’s personality is a small
factor in their success, the most important factor is the context and situation of the
leader. This theory takes the specific leadership styles and suggests that good leaders
can adjust their leadership style situational. It also suggests that it may be best to find
the right kind of leader for a specific situation. Types of contingency theories include
the Hershey and Blanchard’s Situational Theory, the Evans and House Path-Goal
Theory, and Fiedler’s Contingency Theory.

The contingency theory has great advantages, including that leaders are able to
be effective no matter their situational context. However, this theory does have
criticism suggesting that there isn’t enough detail that goes into the context of any
situation. Contingency theory focuses on the importance of a situation, but may not
focus enough on the psychology of the employees or the company itself. It also may
not focus enough on how leadership styles can change over time. 

There are internal and external factors that impact a leader and their situation.
The type of company, the size of the team, and the innate leadership style of an
individual are internal factors. External factors may include the customer feelings and
the marketplace. All of these situations play a factor into the contingency theory. 

 Great Man theory: The great man theory of leadership, sometimes called the trait
theory, suggests that good leaders are born. They have innate traits and skills that
make them great, and these are things that can’t be taught or learned. The trait theory
suggests that leaders deserve to be in their position because of their special traits. 
 There is a great amount of criticism for the trait theory, mainly that leaders are
either born or not, that there isn’t work or effort that is needed to be put in so you can
become a leader. This suggests that social or psychological leaders are predetermined
and that leaders are unable to come from the shadows—they are either chosen or not.
There is also criticism that most of the traits associated with this theory are inherently
masculine, and don't match the real psychology of good leaders. 

People cite Abraham Lincoln, Alexander the Great, Queen Elizabeth I, and
many others as their examples of the great man theory. These social giants utilized
their skills to lead nations. High levels of ambition and determination are usually seen
in leaders that appear to bring this theory to life. Today, leaders that climb to the top
may view their traits and abilities as part of the “great man” theory. So it may appear
that leaders get to their position based on their inherit gifts. 

 Management theory: The management theory is sometimes called transactional

leadership, and focuses on supervision, organization, and group performance.
Transactional leadership is a system of rewards and punishments, and transactional
leadership is regularly used in business. When employees do something successful,
managers reward them. When they fail, they may get punished. Transactional rewards
and punishments are given based on the idea that people really only do things for the
reward. Their psychology doesn't allow human beings to do things out of goodness,
but rather out of the promise of a reward.

The management leadership style can be extremely effective. Positive

reinforcement is known for working wonders with employees, encouraging and
motivating them to succeed. But there is lots of criticism around leadership that is
strictly transactional as well. Consequences and punishments can decrease morale in
an organization, negatively impacting employees. It can also be seen as a lazy
leadership style—rewards and punishments are a relatively simple way to lead
employees.

A common example of this management style is a leader that offers a cash

bonus for employees who meet a goal. Or a leader who makes employees do extra
paperwork if they miss a deadline. 
 Participative theory: Participative leadership isn’t as common in the corporate
world. Sometimes called democratic leadership, this leadership theory suggests that
employees be directly involved in decision making in their organization. The leader
simply facilitates a conversation and then takes all the suggestions, and comes up with
the best possible action. In this theory, everyone is very involved with decisions for
the team and organization, with the leader simply helping direct the charge.

There are many advantages to this theory. Employees feel more engaged and
motivated when they are directly involved in decisions and outcomes for their
company. This theory is not without criticism however—some suggest that this type
of style makes leaders appear weak or unnecessary. It is also a criticism that leaders in
this theory don’t actually get the best outcomes, because they are too engaged in what
people want more than what the company needs. 

Bill Gates is a well-known example of participative theory. While this theory

is still hotly debated, there are many examples of companies that work to incorporate
employees more in the decision making process. In this theory, a leader may have a
meeting to ask employees how to solve a particular problem. They encourage
employees to be open and honest about their thoughts. They take all the suggestions,
and meet with other leaders to discuss them. Leaders then make a decision based on
the input from employees and their own decision making. Employees tend to
appreciate this style, though it can be less effective overall. 

 Power theory: This theory looks at the way a leader utilizes their power and
influence to get things accomplished. French and Raven's Five Forms of Power is a
commonly known power theory of leadership. It looks at positional power and
personal power and how they impact leader’s choices and outcomes. 

This theory may appear to be highly effective—leaders with great power may
seem highly efficient and get things done quickly. However, most employees don’t
appreciate power leadership. They want a leader who doesn’t wield power over them,
but works with them and encourages them. Thus the greatest criticism of this theory is
that it doesn’t reach the end goal of inspiring and encouraging employees, but rather
makes them feel dominated.
 The power theory can be seen in organizations where hierarchy and promotion
is key to success. Employees in power theory companies see that their only way to
influence change or impact the company is to gain power of their own. This can result
in low morale, political, and cliquey climates in the office. 

 Relationship theory: The relationship theory of leadership focuses on leaders who

are mainly concerned about their interactions with others. They are often mentors for
employees, scheduling time to talk to them and working to meet their needs. These
kinds of leaders are focused on making work enjoyable for as many people as
possible, and they want to foster a positive work environment. Studies show that this
kind of leadership behaviour can be the most effective for many employees.
Relationship-oriented managers often get better results from their employees.

There are many advantages to this kind of leadership. Employees feel

confident in their leader and want to follow them. They are also inspired to be good
leaders to others. Mentorship provides great opportunities to foster growth in
employees, and encourages them to stay at the organization for a longer period of
time. There are some critics for this kind of leadership however, including thoughts
that relationship driven leaders may be unwilling to view employees who are causing
problems at face value, they can let relationships get in the way of work, and they can
be guided to favour people over productivity. However, most experts agree that
relationship driven leaders are actually more effective at the end of the day.

An example of relationship theory would be a manager who takes a newer

employee under her wing. She works to help this employee understand how they fit
within the organization, encourage them to be open about questions and problems,
and create a positive working relationship. This employee then is encouraged to work
hard, point out issues, and helps solve problems for the company.