Summary
The behavioral approach to leadership sprang from the old school of thought that there is “only one way” to do something, leadership included (Komives, 2013). The approach is predicated on the idea that good leaders do similar things and behave likewise. Various studies and theorists have analyzed the role and functions of leaders to gain an understanding of how leaders, who are deemed effective, perform as a sort of litmus test for good leadership. The few that revealed similar common themes and are hailed as leading studies in this area are ones conducted by Ohio State and University of Michigan, which narrowed conclusions down to two a few areas of focus. Ohio State essentially concentrated on how managers or leaders impacted the people with whom they worked and led, most importantly the “consideration and initiating structure” afforded these individuals (Komives, 2013). The consideration piece evaluated how well leaders support, care for, and treat subordinates while initiating structure encompasses the level of organization, communication, and preparation of subordinates’ expected outcomes provided in advance by leaders.
Two other researchers, Blake and Mouton proposed a similar way of looking at leadership that was focused on “concern for people and concern for production” (Komives, 2013). Similar to Ohio State, Blake and Mouton focused on how effective leaders work with others as well as the attention leaders put on achieving high quality and efficient work. Michigan State identified three behaviors that make a distinction between effectual and ineffectual leaders, which include relationship focused leadership, completion of tasks, and group dynamics. Michigan State researchers found that leaders who were more employee centered had increased production (University of New Mexico, 2001).
Pros
- The approach focuses on skills and behaviors, which for those wanting to develop themselves as a leader this is an easy way to start on the path to at least emulating good leadership.
Cons
- Critiques include that the approach is too simple when the question of leadership is complex.
- Also, though the approach focuses on the group dynamics of a leader and a team, it doesn’t look at the team members’ roles as leaders within the groups.
- In addition, approach does not take into account how to handle drastic changes within a work environment or within society.
- Though someone who shows care and concern for their employees or individuals being led would do well to develop a great rapport which is important, that doesn’t mean those individuals will be inspired to meet the expected outcomes or standards.
- This approach doesn’t prescribe how leaders should specifically act in certain situations.
Practical Implications
Komives asserts that these studies suggest that leaders focus on high performance standards, (Komives, 2013), and I would add that these studies also suggest that effective leaders understand the individuals they want and need to meet these standards must be viewed as not just numbers or task masters. Inserting a level of humanity and compassion in the management and leadership of others is key to setting yourself up for success in the form of others doing what you want them to do and how you ask them to do it.
On the other hand, this approach does not take into consideration the technological advancements that occurred just a few decades after these studies were conducted let alone over sixty years later. In 2013 alone, companies and organizations have had to deal with changes that were direct impacts of technological advances such as Target’s credit card breaches and Yahoo’s email fraud concerns, or even the Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity’s rogue members posting inappropriate and potentially racist photos on social media pages. Fortune 500 companies and leadership organizations alike must be able to deal with the change in the tide at almost record speed or risk failing or becoming obsolete. With that in mind, leaders must be innovative and unafraid of change, and embrace technology, fresh ideas, and leaders not only at the helm, but also within groups and teams. In addition, leaders must be prepared for change, as nothing stays the same for long.
References
Komives, S.R., Lucas, N. & McMahon, T.R. (2013). Exploring leadership for college students who want to make a difference. (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
University of New Mexico College of Business. (2000). [Chart illustration of Michigan State University Study by David Boje March 6, 2014]. The Isles Leadership: The Voyage of the Behaviorists. Retrieved from http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching/338/behaviors.htm
Leadership Development for Higher Education | Saint Louis University 
I think that good leaders do similar things and behave similarly, but the “only one way” to do something is erroneous. The 3 aspects, relationship focused leadership, completion of tasks, and group dynamics, make sense and seem valid from a behavioral approach, because potential leaders should model and aspire to these. It just makes good sense. Although the cons may be valid, the benefits of aspiring to and attaining good leadership via this approach, out weighs them. It is good to strive for high performance and standards. Yes, leadership and leaders must be innovative, and embrace change and technology.
I definitely disagree with the “one way to lead” approach and since this theory was developed in the 40s and 50s that gives me an idea of why that approach was predicated on that belief. I think during that time diversity of thought and contribution was avoided, which gives way to the idea that there is only one way to do something. But I do agree that this approach has some positive factors. I believe it is so important to support those you lead and exceedingly prepare them for success so I can appreciate the relationship focus. People who feel valued work hard, right?! 🙂
You noted that “in addition, approach does not take into account how to handle drastic changes within a work environment or within society.” Do you feel that this point invalidates this particular theory? Are leaders to “dead-set” in their ways to adapt to change swiftly as proposed by critics?
Though I feel that lack of these studies’ research into what skills and behaviors were displayed in handling drastic change, I have to wonder: Can anyone prepare or know how to behave in an unforeseen occurrence? I guess the focus could be put on leaders who have certain competencies (not skills) like being open minded and innovative especially in relation to change. Another competency would be being a strategist especially during times of uncertainty. So I can appreciate the theory’s focus on people and results, but I do believe it would be enhanced by exploring what kind of leaders are adaptable to change and what that may look like in different instances of change and disruption.
I think some critics may think that leaders are “deadset in their ways”, but I do feel the theory proves or shows that leaders do somewhat adapt when it comes to the different people who work under them. I think showing “consideration” of those being led means you somewhat tailor your management/leadership approach. So maybe those studied displayed changing leadership approach depending on their subordinate. What do you think?
I feel this leadership theory is a good “beginners” model for young emerging leaders to learn and follow. This structure gives students a good foundation of what basic characteristics a good leader should reflect. This also helps students recognize what exactly is the leader doing well or may be lacking. However, as you pointed out, this leadership theory does not indicate the ability to adapt to new challenges or environments. We would need to go beyond the Behavioral approach as we educate our students how to become versatile leaders in multiple settings.
Megan, I totally agree. When I was maybe a sophomore in college, I learned the importance of finding good leaders and “stealing” their style of leading as well as presenting workshops or planning programs. It helped me as I was learning basic or essential skills to find people who demonstrated them regularly. I definitely think emerging leaders would do well to learn and follow those foundational skills and then they’ll have those down packed when they learn how to be more adaptable and accepting and appreciative of diversity in leadership approaches.