The task relations model is defined by Forsyth as "a descriptive leadership model that maintains that most leadership behaviors can be classified as performance maintenance or relationship maintenance." The task-oriented (or task focus) of leadership is a behavioral approach in which leaders focus on tasks that need to be done to achieve a particular goal, or to achieve certain performance standards. Relationship-oriented (or relationship-focus) leadership is a behavioral approach in which leaders focus on the satisfaction, motivation and general well-being of team members.
Task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership are two models that are often compared, as they are known to produce results in different situations.
Video Task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership
Task-oriented leadership qualities
The task-oriented leader focuses on getting the required task, or set of tasks, on hand to achieve a goal. These leaders are usually less concerned with the idea of ​​serving employees and more concerned with finding the step-by-step solution necessary to meet certain goals. They will often actively determine the work and role they need, put the structure in place, and plan, organize, and monitor progress within the team.
The advantage of task-oriented leadership is ensuring that deadlines are met and work is completed, and this is very useful for team members who do not manage time well. In addition, this type of leader tends to illustrate a strong understanding of how to complete a job, focusing on the necessary workplace procedures and delegating the appropriate work to ensure that everything is done in a timely and productive manner.
However, because task-oriented leaders do not tend to think much about the welfare of their teams, this approach can suffer many weaknesses of autocratic leadership, including causing motivation and retention problems.
Maps Task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership
Relationship-oriented leadership qualities
Relations-oriented leaders focus on the support, motivation and development of the people in their team and the relationships within them. This leadership style encourages good teamwork and collaboration, through the development of positive relationships and good communication. Relations-oriented leaders prioritize the well-being of everyone in the group, and will put time and effort into meeting the individual needs of all those involved. This may involve offering incentives such as bonuses, mediating to handle conflicts at work or classrooms, having more casual interactions with team members to learn about their strengths and weaknesses, creating an uncompetitive and transparent work environment, or simply leading the personality or how to encourage.
The benefit of relationship-oriented leadership is that team members are in an arrangement where leaders care about their well-being. Relations-oriented leaders understand that building positive productivity requires a positive environment in which individuals feel compelled. Personal conflicts, dissatisfaction with work, hatred and even boredom can greatly decrease productivity, so leaders of this type put the first person to ensure that the problem remains minimal. In addition, team members may be more willing to take risks, because they know that leaders will provide support if necessary.
The disadvantage of relationship-oriented leadership is that, if taken too far, the development of a chemical team can reduce actual tasks and goals.
The term "people-oriented" is used synonymously, while in business settings, this approach can also be referred to as "employee-oriented".
Job-oriented vs. relationship-oriented leadership
In the 1940s, research in leadership began to diverge from identifying individual leadership characteristics, to analyze the effects of specific leadership behaviors - particularly task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership.
The table below compares task-oriented leadership styles and side-by-side relationships:
Mixed conclusions have increased from research that attempts to determine the effects of task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership: some suggest that relationship-oriented leadership produces greater productivity, while some suggest that task-oriented leaders create greater group efficacy.
However, the general finding is that relationship-oriented leadership will result in greater cohesion in groups, as well as larger team learning. It is also supported that relationship-oriented leadership has a stronger individual impact, and a positive effect on self-efficacy.
A meta-analysis (Burke et al., 2006) conducted in 2006 integrates a broad spectrum of theoretical and empirical studies, and looks at the effects of leadership behaviors through a variety of dimensions, including breaking down specific task-oriented and relationship-oriented. leadership into subgroups such as "start structure", "consideration", and "empowerment". The main analytical tools investigate the relationship between task-oriented leadership behaviors and the following results-oriented relationships: perceived team effectiveness, team productivity, and team learning/growth. The results concluded that task-oriented leadership and relationship-oriented leadership resulted in relatively similar team effectiveness, but the team's actual productivity was higher for relationship-oriented teams than for task-oriented teams (each increased by 8% and 4%).
It has also been suggested that groups who consider their leaders more task-oriented achieve higher levels of achievement of tasks.
Lead substitution theory
In Forsyth, the leadership substitution theory is defined as "the conceptual analysis of combining factors to reduce or eliminate the need for a leader." A leader can find that behaviors that focus on maintaining interpersonal relationships, or coordinating tasks and starting structures, are not required in every situation. A study by Kerr and Jermier found that some contextual factors may negate the need for task-oriented or relationship-oriented leadership behaviors, such as the specific characteristics of group members, tasks, or organizations.
Groups consisting of members who have "professional" orientations or members who do not value group values ​​can neutralize or negate relations-oriented duties and leadership. Also, highly trained and capable individuals, or those who have a need for independence, may not require their leaders to focus on coordinating tasks.
When the task is clear and routine, "methodologically invariant," or involves automatic feedback about achievement, task-oriented leadership may not be necessary. In addition, an intrinsically satisfying task can eliminate the need for relationship-oriented leadership behaviors.
Finally, task-oriented leadership can be neutralized/negated by some organizational characteristics; formal environment, inflexible structures, special staff functions, cohesive working groups, organized awards beyond the control of leaders, and physical distance between leaders and members. Characteristics of organized rewards, cohesive working groups, and physical distance have also been shown to negate the need for a relationship-oriented leadership style.
Fiedler contingency model
Fiedler's contingency model argues that three situational components can determine whether a task-oriented orientation or relationship-oriented leadership is more appropriate for the situation:
- Leader-Member Relationship, refers to the level of mutual trust, respect, and trust between leaders and subordinates.
- Task Structure, referring to the extent to which group tasks are clear and structured.
- The Power Leader's position refers to the forces inherent in the leader's position.
When there is a good leader-member relationship, a highly structured task, and a high leader position, the situation is considered a "favorable situation." Fiedler finds that Low-LPC leaders are more effective in highly profitable or unfavorable situations, while high-performance LPC leaders perform best in medium-sized situations.
The table below shows the details of the theory:
Relevant studies
The experiment was conducted in 1972 with a total of 128 US Military cadets in 4 groups of men, to test the predictive validity of the Fiedler leadership contingency model. The experiment, which involves strong manipulation and variable specifications that affect favorable circumstances, generates strong support for the contingency model.
A study was undertaken determined if athletes of basketball of different age groups (lower secondary school level) preferred training and instruction (task-oriented) behavior or social support (relationship-oriented) behaviors. The analysis and results reveal quadratic tendencies for preference in task-oriented behaviors that are declining in secondary schools down through junior to senior levels, and are increasing at university level. The linear trend is seen for preference in relationship-oriented behavior, which increases with age.
Situational leadership theory
In 1950, management theorists from Ohio State University and the University of Michigan published a series of studies to determine whether leaders should be more task-oriented or relationships. The study concludes that there is no single "best" leadership style, and thus leads to the creation of situational leadership theory, which basically argues that leaders should engage in healthy doses of both task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership that are appropriate for the situation, and those who are led.
Blake Mouton Managerial Grid, also known as the managerial network model, serves as a framework to determine how one can balance task-oriented leadership and relationship-oriented leadership. It plots the level of task-centeredness versus linkages and identifies five combinations as different leadership styles.
See also
- Leadership
- Leadership characters
- Transactional leadership
- Transformational leadership
- Leadership style
- Situational leadership theory
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments