UPI Study › Courses › Principles of Management › Free lessons › Lesson 9.9 Free with a free account
Reading the Grid: Blake and Mouton's 5 Styles of Leadership
Principles of Management · Chapter 9: Leadership Styles and Sources of InfluenceSection 9.9 · lesson 53 of 11712 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Principles of Management.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Principles of Management
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Where Power Comes From: Personal and Positional Sources →← By the Book: The Bureaucratic Leadership ApproachNext lesson: Where Power Comes From: Personal and Positional Sources →
In this lesson
2 independent concerns, 5 named positions, and a revealing gap.
- Describe the grid's two dimensions
- Identify the 5 named positions
- Weigh team management's claim against contingency
- Place a leader and state the development implication
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,604 words). Read along, or search it.
Leadership Styles and Sources of Influence
Reading the Grid: Blake and Mouton's 5 Styles of Leadership
Most of the styles in this chapter describe one kind of leader at a time. This section offers a map that holds them together, the managerial grid. We'll start with its two dimensions, and the claim that makes the grid matter. They're independent. Then we'll walk through its five named positions, and look hard at the one most leaders actually occupy. We'll set the grid's big claim, that one style is best, against contingency thinking. And we'll finish with its most useful application. That's the gap between where a leader thinks she sits on the grid, and where her team places her. That gap, it turns out, is often worth more than the position itself.
The Grid's Dimensions
Production and People
The managerial grid was developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton. It plots leadership behavior along two scaled dimensions. The first is concern for production. That's the degree to which a leader prioritizes task accomplishment, and results. The second is concern for people. That's the degree to which a leader prioritizes the wellbeing and development of the people doing the work. Now the crucial claim. These two dimensions are independent. They are not opposite ends of a single continuum. A leader isn't forced to trade one off against the other along one scale. And a leader can genuinely score high on both at once.
Why It Matters
A Single Scale Would Rule Out the Best Answer
That independence is the grid's core contribution. Here's why. Imagine a framework that treated concern for production and concern for people as a single continuum. More of one would automatically mean less of the other. That framework would rule out, by construction, the very combination the grid identifies as most desirable. High on both simply couldn't exist on that scale. The grid didn't invent this two-dimensional idea from nothing. Earlier behavioral leadership research had already found task-oriented and people-oriented behavior to be separate dimensions, not a single trade-off. That work belongs to the broader trait and behavior traditions in leadership research. Subchapter ten point six covers those traditions in full. Here, the focus is the grid itself, built on that two-dimensional finding.
The Named Positions
5 Named Positions on the Grid
Five positions on the grid carry specific names. Each is written as a score for production, then people, from one to nine. Impoverished management scores one and one. It's low on both production and people. That's close to the laissez-faire leadership of Subchapter nine point four, with minimal genuine investment in the work or the people. Country club management scores one on production and nine on people. It prioritizes comfort and relationships over actual results. Authority-compliance management is the reverse, nine on production and one on people. It echoes the autocratic style from Subchapter nine point six, driving results with little regard for the people producing them. Middle-of-the-road management sits at five and five. It balances both concerns at a moderate, unremarkable level. And team management scores nine and nine, high on both. That's the position Blake and Mouton proposed as the single best style available.
Table 9.9.1
What Each Position Achieves and Sacrifices
Table nine point nine point one sets out what each position achieves, and what it sacrifices. Impoverished management shows minimal direction, and minimal engagement with people or task. It achieves very little. The position is defined by its absence of investment, and it sacrifices both results and real relationships. Country club management is warm and attentive, with little pressure on results. It buys comfort, harmony, and loyalty in the short term, at the cost of task performance and results over time. Authority-compliance puts high pressure on results, with little attention to people. It gets short-term output and compliance. It gives up commitment, morale, and long-term capability. Middle-of-the-road pays moderate attention to both, and avoids extremes. It reaches a workable compromise, but sacrifices the excellence either dimension could offer at full commitment. And team management invests genuinely in both results and people at once. It achieves strong results through committed people. Its authors say it sacrifices little. That claim is contested, as we'll see shortly.
Examined Closely
The Middle of the Road
Middle-of-the-road management deserves a closer look, for one reason. In practice, it's the most common real position leaders actually occupy. It's tempting to see it as the safe, sensible choice. Moderate on everything, extreme on nothing. The framework rejects that reading. It treats middle-of-the-road as a compromise that achieves neither dimension particularly well. A leader who moderates her concern for both production and people, rather than committing fully to either, gives something up. She forgoes the genuine excellence a fuller commitment to each might have produced. She avoids the worst failures of the other positions. But she settles there, without reaching for the best available outcomes. So if middle-of-the-road feels comfortable, the grid asks a pointed question. Comfortable compared with what?
Later Additions
2 Further Positions
Later versions of the framework added two further positions. They're worth noting for accuracy. The first is paternalistic management. It combines high concern for production with a particular kind of concern for people. That concern is directive, and parental. It falls short of the genuine, collaborative investment in people that defines team management. The second is opportunistic management. Here, a leader shifts her position on the grid situationally. She moves to whichever combination best serves her own immediate advantage. So she never occupies any one position consistently. Notice the contrast with genuine adaptability from Subchapter nine point seven. The shifts serve the leader, not the situation.
The Prescriptive Claim
Universal Best, or It Depends?
Blake and Mouton made a strong prescriptive claim, and it should be stated as they made it. Team management, they argued, is universally superior. It's the single best style, regardless of situation or context. That claim needs to be set against the contingency thinking covered in Subchapter five point five. Contingency thinking holds that no single style is best in all conditions. The right style depends on the specific conditions a leader actually faces. This is a genuine disagreement between the two frameworks, and we'll present it as one, without resolving it. What does the evidence say, stated honestly? It supports the grid's two-dimensional structure well. The two concerns really do seem to operate separately. But team management's universal superiority isn't well supported in the same way. It remains contested. So the most defensible use of the grid is as a vocabulary for describing leadership behavior. It isn't a settled prescription that one position is right for every leader, everywhere.
A Development Tool
Where You Think You Are, and Where Others See You
The grid's most durable practical use is as a development tool, rather than a diagnostic label. It works in three moves. First, self-assessment. A leader locates her own perceived position on the two dimensions. Second, others' assessment, of exactly the same behavior. The gap between the two is frequently the grid's most valuable finding in practice. A leader who rates herself high on both dimensions may be surprised. Her team may place her considerably closer to authority-compliance, or to middle-of-the-road, than she perceived. Third, the development implication. Each position on the grid carries one. A leader who finds herself closer to country club management than she intended, by her own assessment or others', has a direction. It's a specific, identifiable direction to develop toward.
Figure 9.9.1
The Grid, and a Perception Gap
Figure nine point nine point one draws the grid, with concern for production along the bottom and concern for people up the side. The five named positions sit at its corners and its center. Country club at the top left, and team management at the top right. Impoverished at the bottom left, and authority-compliance at the bottom right. Middle-of-the-road sits in the center. Then a described leader is plotted twice. She's Sofia, at a fictional firm, Harborline Manufacturing. The gold marker is her self-assessment, near team management. The dark marker is her team's assessment of the same behavior. It sits much closer to authority-compliance. The dashed line between them is the perception gap. That gap identifies a specific development direction. Her self-assessment alone would never have revealed it.
Case Vignette
A Self-Assessment the Team Did Not Share
Here's that case in full. It's a composite, constructed for instruction. Sofia, a department head at Harborline Manufacturing, completed a self-assessment. She placed herself confidently near team management, rating her concern for both results and people as consistently high. An anonymous team assessment of the same behaviors was gathered separately. It placed Sofia considerably closer to authority-compliance management. Team members consistently described her as highly focused on results and deadlines. Several noticed a pattern. Check-ins framed as concern for their wellbeing typically pivoted quickly back to status updates on deliverables. So which assessment was right? That's the wrong question. The gap itself was the grid's most valuable finding. It wasn't a verdict on which view was objectively correct. It was a specific, actionable signal. Sofia's genuine intention to invest in her people wasn't landing as such, with the people she led. That's precisely the development implication the grid is built to surface.
Check Yourself
Place the Leader
Let's practice placing leaders on the grid. A leader intensely focused on deadlines, with little regard for team morale, sits at authority-compliance. A leader who avoids conflict about performance to protect team harmony is showing country club management. A leader who shifts her approach depending on what serves her is opportunistic. And a leader whose warmth toward staff feels paternal, rather than collaborative, is paternalistic. Now a reverse problem. A team describes its manager as caring, but rarely holding anyone accountable for missed deadlines. The manager herself believes she balances people and results well. The team's experience points to high concern for people and low concern for production. That's the country club position. And the gap between her view and theirs is exactly the development signal the grid exists to find. Next, Subchapter nine point ten closes the chapter with where power actually comes from. That means the personal and positional sources available to any leader, whatever her style or grid position.
About Principles of Management at UPI Study
Principles of Management (Business 101) is a self-paced online course of 117 video lessons in 17 chapters, from the classical schools and the four management functions to leadership, motivation, change, human resources, strategy and ethics. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Principles of Management with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Principles of Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Reading the Grid: Blake and Mouton's 5 Styles of Leadership
What is the Blake and Mouton managerial grid?
What are the five leadership styles on the managerial grid?
Is team management really the best leadership style?
How can a leader use the managerial grid for personal development?
About the Principles of Management course
How many college credits is Principles of Management?
How much does Principles of Management cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Principles of Management take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Principles of Management.
117 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →