What is the major difference between the ohio state studies and the michigan studies of leadership

The Michigan Leadership Studies was a well-known series of leadership studies that commenced at the University of Michigan in the 1950s, intending to identify the principles and types of leadership styles that led to greater productivity and enhanced job satisfaction among workers. The studies identified two broad leadership styles: an employee orientation and a production orientation. They also identified three critical characteristics of effective leaders: task-oriented behavior, relationship-oriented behavior, and participative leadership.

• The Michigan Leadership Studies identified the leadership styles that produced the highest employee satisfaction and productivity.
• The studies categorized leadership styles as either employee orientation, which emphasizes human relations, or production orientation, which focuses on task-oriented activities.
• The research identified that employee orientation with general supervision produced more favorable results compared to production orientation and direct supervision.
• Critics contend that the study is limiting as it does not consider all circumstances and types of organizations, leaders, and employees.

The studies concluded that an employee orientation coupled with general, rather than close or direct, supervision led to better results. Employee orientation focuses on the human element of employment, stressing that employees have needs that employers should address and care for.

In contrast, production orientation focuses on the technical elements of employment and employees are a means to complete production. The Michigan leadership studies, along with the Ohio State University studies that took place in the 1940s, are two of the best-known behavioral leadership studies and continue to be cited to this day.

The overarching assertion of the studies was that less direct pressure and control allows employees to be more productive and engaged with their tasks. However, there have been critiques and questions about the methodology and results of the studies. One such critique is that the context of the employees, leadership, and task was not taken into consideration, which raises the possibility that the situation at the organization might warrant one leadership style over another.

Furthermore, the disposition of the workers can be a factor in the leadership approach. The way employees perform may influence a leader to be more hands-on if more direction is needed due to the complexities of the task. Likewise, if employees prove themselves to be capable and handle their tasks fluidly on their own, there is little need for more overt control. A team of veteran workers who have studied and worked on a task for many years might not require a direct manager to issue directives; thus, in that context, it is more likely for the leader to afford them more autonomy.

The narrow options of the studies also do not consider that one size does not fit all organizations or circumstances. Using the same leadership at two different companies can still result in failure or success due to other elements at play. It is common for leaders to adapt their styles over time and as needed, rather than remain committed to a fixed pattern.

Although the Michigan Leadership Studies remain notable, other theories and studies on leadership approaches have developed in more recent years that take into account different dynamics, such as the servant leadership philosophy.

We have textbook solutions for you!

The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.

The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.

Understanding Management

Daft/Marcic

Introduction

Ohio State University and the University of Michigan performed a research on leadership at about the same period; between 1940s to 1950s. Even though during that period, influence on leadership studies more to autocratic and democratic but the conducted researches by these two universities more to determine the behaviour of effective leaders which later those identified behaviour were named as leadership style.

The objective of this paper is to discuss on similarities and differences of the leadership styles by University of Michigan and Ohio State University. The content of this paper will as follows: firstly, a review on University of Michigan leadership model and the second part, is a review on Ohio State University leadership model. Finally, a discussion on similarities and differences of the leadership styles between the two universities.

University of Michigan: Job-Centered and Employee-Centered Behavior

The University of Michigan’s Survey Research Center, under the principal direction of Rensis Likert, conducted studies to determine leadership effectiveness. Their main objectives are:

1. To classify the leaders as effective and ineffective by comparing the behaviour of leaders
2. To determine reasons for effective leadership.

The University of Michigan leadership model stated that a leader is either more job-centered or more employee-centered as illustrated in below Figure 1.

The job-centered style has scales measuring two job-oriented behaviours of goal emphasis and work facilitation. Job-centered behavior refers to the extent to which the leader takes charge to get the job done. The leader closely directs subordinates with clear roles and goals, while the manager tells them what to do and how to do it as they work toward goal achievement.

The employee-centered style has scales measuring two employee-oriented behaviours of supportive leadership and interaction facilitation. Employee-centered behaviour refers to the extent to which the leader focuses on meeting the human needs of employees while developing relationships. The leader is sensitive to subordinates and communicates to develop trust, support, and respect while looking out for their welfare.

.

Ohio State University: Initiating Structure and Consideration Behavior

Likes University of Michigan, The Personnel Research Board of Ohio State University, under the principal direction of Ralph Stogdill, also conducted a study on the same purpose which is to determine effective leadership styles. They developed Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) and from the questionnaires, their findings on leadership styles as follows:

1. Initiating structure behaviour where the leadership style is essentially the same as the job-centered leadership style of the University of Michigan; which focuses on getting the job done.
2. Consideration behaviour where this leadership style is essentially the same as the employee-centered leadership style which focuses on meeting people’s needs and developing relationships.

Ohio State University stated that because a leader can be on high or low sides of initiating structure and/or consideration, they developed four leadership styles as follows:

1. low initiating structure and high consideration,
2. high initiating structure and high consideration,
3. low initiating structure and low consideration, and
4. high initiating structure and low consideration.

Leaders with high structure and low consideration behaviour use one-way communications, and decisions are made by the managers, whereas leaders with high consideration and low structure use two-way communications and tend to share decision making.

Conclusion:

1. Similarities between Leadership Models and Their Contributions

• · Both of the universities have developed a questionnaire and conducted a research that have same objective which is to determine the behaviour of effective leader
• · Both researches are conducted in same period between 1940s to 1950s.
• · Both universities developed leadership model that emphasis on same definitions which are on task-oriented and people-oriented style of leadership, even though used term is different.

· The two leadership models of both universities are proven due to strong research support and repeatedly being tested.

2. Differences between Leadership Models and Their Contributions

• The Ohio State and University of Michigan leadership models are different in that the University of Michigan places the two leadership behaviours at opposite ends of the same continuum, making it one-dimensional. The Ohio State University Model considers the two behaviours independent of one another, making it two-dimensional.
• University of Michigan’s one dimensional model proposed two leadership styles (1) employee-centered and (2) job-centered while Ohio State leadership model has four leadership styles as follows, (1) low initiating structure and high consideration, (2) high initiating structure and high consideration, (3) low initiating structure and low consideration, and (4) high initiating structure and low consideration.

References

Robert N. Lussier and Christopher F. Achua, (2010) Leadership: Theory, Application, & Skill Development, USA, South-Western Cengage Learning.

Richard L. Daft (2011). Leadership (5th edition). USA: South-Western Cengage Learning.