166:
subgroups such as "initiating structure", "consideration", and "empowerment". Its main set of analyses investigated the relationship between task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership behaviors on the following outcomes: perceived team effectiveness, team productivity, and team learning/growth. Results concluded that task-oriented leadership and relationship-oriented leadership produce a relatively similar perceived team effectiveness, however actual team productivity was higher for relationship-oriented led teams than for task-oriented teams (measured increase of 8% and 4% respectively).
162:. Fiedler pointed out that a task oriented leader can be most considerate when things are certain, there are limited unknowns, and their influence and power are high. Additionally task oriented individuals will place primary emphasis on task completion and secondary focus on relationships amongst the team. A more relationship oriented leader will be considerate "when some uncertainty is present" (p. 334). In fact, relationship oriented individuals are likely to reach out to team members in times of uncertainty.
69:
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.
73:
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.
181:
is defined as "a conceptual analysis of the factors that combine to reduce or eliminate the need for a leader." 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
391:
published a series of studies to determine whether leaders should be more task- or relationship-oriented. The research concluded that there is no single "best" style of leadership, and thus led to the creation of the situational leadership theory, which essentially argues that leaders should engage
368:
A study was conducted that determined if basketball athletes of different age groups (lower high school to university level) preferred training and instruction (task-oriented) behavior or social support (relationship-oriented) behavior. Analyses and results revealed a quadratic trend for preference
222:
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
193:
Finally, task oriented leadership can be neutralized/negated by several organizational characteristics; a formal environment, inflexible structure, specific staff functions, cohesive work groups, organized rewards outside of the leaders control, and physical distance between the leader and members.
364:
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. The experiment, which involved strong manipulation and specification of variables affecting situational
27:
as "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 which are often compared, as they are known to produce varying outcomes
185:
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
44:
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
165:
A meta-analysis (Burke et al., 2006) conducted in 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
68:
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
72:
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,
48:
The advantage of task-oriented leadership is that it ensures that deadlines are met and jobs are completed, and it is especially useful for team members who do not manage their time well. Additionally, these types of leaders tend to exemplify a strong understanding of how to get the job done,
189:
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.
146:
Mixed conclusions have risen from studies that try to determine the effects of task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership: some show that task-oriented leadership produces greater productivity, while some show that relation-oriented leaders create greater group efficacy.
369:
in task-oriented behavior that progressively decreased lower high school through junior to senior levels, and increased at the university level. A linear trend was seen for preference in relationship-oriented behavior, which progressively increased as age went up.
150:
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
678:
Sahertian, Pieter; Soetjipto, Budi Eko (June 2011). "Improving
Employee's Organizational Commitment, Self-Efficacy, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior Through the Implementation of Task-Oriented and Relationship-Oriented Leadership Behavior".
399:, serves as a framework to determine how one can balance task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership. It plots the degree of task-centeredness versus relationship-centeredness and identifies five combinations as distinct leadership styles.
87:
In the 1940s, research in leadership began straying away from identifying individual leadership traits, to analyzing the effects of certain leadership behaviors – predominantly task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership.
182:
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.
32:(or task-focused) leadership is a behavioral approach in which the leader focuses on the tasks that need to be performed in order to meet certain goals, or to achieve a certain performance standard.
651:
Burke, C. Shawn; Stagl, Kevin C.; Klein, Cameron; Goodwin, Gerald F.; Salas, Eduardo; Halpin, Stanley M. (2006). "What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis".
611:
Arana, Jose M.; Chambel, M. Jose; Curral, Luis; Tabernero, Carmen (Nov 2009). "The role of task-oriented versus relationship-oriented leadership on normative contract and group performance".
697:
Fiedler, F. E. (1993). The contingency model: New directions for leadership utilization. In
Matteson and Ivancevich (Eds.), Management and Organizational Behavior Classics (pp. 333-345)
713:
Fiedler, F. E. (1993). The contingency model: New directions for leadership utilization. In
Matteson and Ivancevich (Eds.), Management and Organizational Behavior Classics (p. 334).
208:
The
Fiedler contingency model argues that three situational components can determine whether task-oriented or relationship-oriented leadership is the better fit for the situation:
194:
The characteristics of organized rewards, cohesive work groups, and physical distance have also been shown to negate the need for relationship oriented leadership styles.
36:(or relationship-focused) leadership is a behavioral approach in which the leader focuses on the satisfaction, motivation and the general well-being of the team members.
76:
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.
49:
focusing on the necessary workplace procedures and delegating work accordingly to ensure that everything is completed in a timely and productive manner.
765:
516:
534:
79:
The term "people-oriented" is used synonymously, whilst in a business setting, this approach may also be referred to as "employee-oriented".
45:
often actively define the work and the roles required, put structures in place, and plan, organize, and monitor progress within the team.
169:
It has also been theorized that groups who perceive their leaders as more task-oriented achieve higher levels of task accomplishment.
52:
However, because task-oriented leaders do not tend to focus on their team's well-being, this approach can suffer many of the flaws of
212:
Leader-Member
Relations, referring to the degree of mutual trust, respect and confidence between the leader and the subordinates.
158:
Fiedler emphasized the strengths of consideration in the context of these two leadership styles in his 1993 publication on the
816:
Chemers, Martin M.; Skrzypek, George J. (Nov 1972). "Experimental test of the contingency model of leadership effectiveness".
392:
in a healthy dose of both task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership fit for the situation, and the people being led.
500:
574:
Reilly, Anthony Joseph III (1968). "The
Effects of Different Leadership Styles on Group Performance: A Field Experiment".
800:
468:
929:
433:
378:
423:
203:
159:
592:
418:
91:
The table below compares task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership styles side-by-side:
879:
388:
759:
579:
396:
384:
53:
730:
Kerr, Jermier, S, J.M. (1978). "Substitutes for
Leadership: Their meaning and measurement".
558:
Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications
8:
934:
456:
901:
747:
510:
218:
Leader
Position Power, referring to the power inherent in the leader's position itself.
57:
792:
215:
Task
Structure, referring to the extent to which group tasks are clear and structured.
851:
Carron, A. V.; Chelladurai, P. (1983). "Athletic Maturity and Preferred Leadership".
833:
796:
743:
496:
464:
428:
751:
650:
860:
825:
788:
739:
660:
628:
620:
413:
24:
610:
664:
137:
Strict use of schedules and step-by-step plans, and a punishment/incentive system
624:
923:
535:"Differences between Task-Oriented Leaders & Relational-Oriented Leaders"
152:
779:
Fiedler, Fred E. (1964). "A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness".
140:
Communication facilitation, casual interactions and frequent team meetings
837:
495:(8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. pp. 135–136.
864:
633:
408:
829:
82:
365:
favorableness, produced strong support for the contingency model.
63:
709:
707:
705:
703:
677:
815:
700:
129:
Emphasis on goal-setting and a clear plan to achieve goals
463:. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. p. 253.
39:
880:"The Importance of Choosing the Right Leadership Style"
186:
require that their leader focus on task coordination.
850:
132:Emphasis on team members and communication within
116:Focus on relationships, well-being and motivation
83:Task-oriented vs. Relationship-oriented Leadership
226:The table below shows a breakdown of the theory:
172:
921:
528:
526:
395:The Blake Mouton Managerial Grid, also known as
372:
223:in situations with intermediate favourability.
732:Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
729:
523:
64:Qualities of relationship-oriented leadership
818:Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
764:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
569:
567:
515:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
197:
124:Foster positive relationships is a priority
606:
604:
602:
491:Griffin, Ronald J. Ebert, Ricky W. (2010).
781:Advances in Experimental Social Psychology
646:
644:
632:
564:
560:(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
599:
383:In the 1950s, management theorists from
778:
641:
490:
455:
922:
573:
877:
725:
723:
721:
719:
486:
484:
482:
480:
121:Produce desired results is a priority
108:Emphasis on interaction facilitation
40:Qualities of task-oriented leadership
555:
532:
451:
449:
359:
113:Focus on structure, roles and tasks
56:, including causing motivation and
13:
902:"The Blake Mouton Managerial Grid"
716:
477:
14:
946:
446:
894:
871:
844:
809:
772:
613:Social Behavior and Personality
28:under different circumstances.
691:
671:
549:
173:Leadership substitution theory
1:
793:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60051-9
439:
434:Situational leadership theory
379:Situational leadership theory
373:Situational leadership theory
105:Emphasis on work facilitation
744:10.1016/0030-5073(78)90023-5
665:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.007
179:leadership substitute theory
7:
853:Journal of Sport Psychology
625:10.2224/sbp.2009.37.10.1391
424:Transformational leadership
402:
10:
951:
461:Group Dynamics 5th edition
376:
201:
204:Fiedler contingency model
198:Fiedler contingency model
653:The Leadership Quarterly
419:Transactional leadership
238:Leader's Position Power
232:Leader-Member Relations
21:task-relationship model
587:Cite journal requires
389:University of Michigan
339:Relationship-oriented
325:Relationship-oriented
311:Relationship-oriented
297:Relationship-oriented
241:Most Effective Leader
100:Relationship-Oriented
397:managerial grid model
385:Ohio State University
54:autocratic leadership
34:Relationship-oriented
930:Strategic management
457:Forsyth, Donelson R.
16:Models of leadership
878:Johannsen, Murray.
865:10.1123/jsp.5.4.371
681:The Business Review
556:Bass, B.M. (1990).
493:Business essentials
533:Anzalone, Chris.
502:978-0-13-705349-0
429:Leadership styles
357:
356:
160:contingency model
144:
143:
942:
914:
913:
911:
909:
898:
892:
891:
889:
887:
875:
869:
868:
848:
842:
841:
830:10.1037/h0033371
813:
807:
806:
776:
770:
769:
763:
755:
727:
714:
711:
698:
695:
689:
688:
675:
669:
668:
648:
639:
638:
636:
608:
597:
596:
590:
585:
583:
575:
571:
562:
561:
553:
547:
546:
544:
542:
530:
521:
520:
514:
506:
488:
475:
474:
453:
414:Trait leadership
360:Relevant studies
229:
228:
177:In Forsyth, the
94:
93:
25:Donelson Forsyth
950:
949:
945:
944:
943:
941:
940:
939:
920:
919:
918:
917:
907:
905:
900:
899:
895:
885:
883:
876:
872:
849:
845:
814:
810:
803:
777:
773:
757:
756:
728:
717:
712:
701:
696:
692:
676:
672:
649:
642:
609:
600:
588:
586:
577:
576:
572:
565:
554:
550:
540:
538:
531:
524:
508:
507:
503:
489:
478:
471:
454:
447:
442:
405:
381:
375:
362:
206:
200:
175:
85:
66:
42:
17:
12:
11:
5:
948:
938:
937:
932:
916:
915:
893:
870:
859:(4): 371–380.
843:
824:(2): 172–177.
808:
801:
787:(1): 149–190.
771:
738:(3): 375–403.
715:
699:
690:
670:
659:(3): 288–307.
640:
598:
589:|journal=
563:
548:
537:. Demand Media
522:
501:
476:
469:
444:
443:
441:
438:
437:
436:
431:
426:
421:
416:
411:
404:
401:
377:Main article:
374:
371:
361:
358:
355:
354:
353:Task-oriented
351:
348:
345:
341:
340:
337:
334:
331:
327:
326:
323:
320:
317:
313:
312:
309:
306:
303:
299:
298:
295:
292:
289:
285:
284:
283:Task-oriented
281:
278:
275:
271:
270:
269:Task-oriented
267:
264:
261:
257:
256:
255:Task-oriented
253:
250:
247:
243:
242:
239:
236:
235:Task Structure
233:
220:
219:
216:
213:
202:Main article:
199:
196:
174:
171:
142:
141:
138:
134:
133:
130:
126:
125:
122:
118:
117:
114:
110:
109:
106:
102:
101:
98:
84:
81:
65:
62:
41:
38:
23:is defined by
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
947:
936:
933:
931:
928:
927:
925:
903:
897:
881:
874:
866:
862:
858:
854:
847:
839:
835:
831:
827:
823:
819:
812:
804:
802:9780120152018
798:
794:
790:
786:
782:
775:
767:
761:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
733:
726:
724:
722:
720:
710:
708:
706:
704:
694:
686:
682:
674:
666:
662:
658:
654:
647:
645:
635:
630:
626:
622:
618:
614:
607:
605:
603:
594:
581:
570:
568:
559:
552:
536:
529:
527:
518:
512:
504:
498:
494:
487:
485:
483:
481:
472:
470:9780495599524
466:
462:
458:
452:
450:
445:
435:
432:
430:
427:
425:
422:
420:
417:
415:
412:
410:
407:
406:
400:
398:
393:
390:
386:
380:
370:
366:
352:
349:
346:
343:
342:
338:
335:
332:
329:
328:
324:
321:
318:
315:
314:
310:
307:
304:
301:
300:
296:
293:
290:
287:
286:
282:
279:
276:
273:
272:
268:
265:
262:
259:
258:
254:
251:
248:
245:
244:
240:
237:
234:
231:
230:
227:
224:
217:
214:
211:
210:
209:
205:
195:
191:
187:
183:
180:
170:
167:
163:
161:
156:
154:
153:self-efficacy
148:
139:
136:
135:
131:
128:
127:
123:
120:
119:
115:
112:
111:
107:
104:
103:
99:
97:Task-Oriented
96:
95:
92:
89:
80:
77:
74:
70:
61:
59:
55:
50:
46:
37:
35:
31:
30:Task-oriented
26:
22:
906:. Retrieved
904:. Mind Tools
896:
884:. Retrieved
873:
856:
852:
846:
821:
817:
811:
784:
780:
774:
760:cite journal
735:
731:
693:
684:
680:
673:
656:
652:
619:(10): 1391.
616:
612:
580:cite journal
557:
551:
539:. Retrieved
492:
460:
394:
382:
367:
363:
347:Unstructured
333:Unstructured
291:Unstructured
277:Unstructured
225:
221:
207:
192:
188:
184:
178:
176:
168:
164:
157:
149:
145:
90:
86:
78:
75:
71:
67:
51:
47:
43:
33:
29:
20:
18:
687:(2): 48–60.
634:10451/11009
935:Leadership
924:Categories
908:2 November
886:2 November
541:3 November
440:References
409:Leadership
319:Structured
305:Structured
263:Structured
249:Structured
60:problems.
882:. Legacee
511:cite book
58:retention
752:17517754
459:(2010).
403:See also
387:and the
838:4562922
836:
799:
750:
499:
467:
336:Strong
308:Strong
280:Strong
252:Strong
748:S2CID
910:2012
888:2012
834:PMID
797:ISBN
766:link
593:help
543:2012
517:link
497:ISBN
465:ISBN
350:Weak
344:Poor
330:Poor
322:Weak
316:Poor
302:Poor
294:Weak
288:Good
274:Good
266:Weak
260:Good
246:Good
19:The
861:doi
826:doi
789:doi
740:doi
661:doi
629:hdl
621:doi
926::
855:.
832:.
822:24
820:.
795:.
783:.
762:}}
758:{{
746:.
736:22
734:.
718:^
702:^
685:17
683:.
657:17
655:.
643:^
627:.
617:37
615:.
601:^
584::
582:}}
578:{{
566:^
525:^
513:}}
509:{{
479:^
448:^
155:.
912:.
890:.
867:.
863::
857:5
840:.
828::
805:.
791::
785:1
768:)
754:.
742::
667:.
663::
637:.
631::
623::
595:)
591:(
545:.
519:)
505:.
473:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.