April 15, 2025
by Stephen T. Messenger
My first job was working at a fast food restaurant. I was given the important task of hamburger bun toasting. Every day, I would arrive, continuously feed hamburger buns into the conveyor belt, and gather the lightly toasted ones on the other side. It was monotonous work that, believe it or not, wasn’t very fulfilling, but was necessary.
The team leader, who was a nice guy, managed a shift of about eight high school kids, mostly looking for a little extra money and free soda in their bellies.
Well, during the lunch and dinner rushes, the line of cars piling up in the drive-thru was relentless. There were hangry people ready to consume their mouth-watering burgers on a perfectly toasted bun. During these times, the team leader became a hyper-focused, production-driven authoritarian and had little care for our well-being. If the bun production, or any of the less important parts of the assembly line, were slow, he would let us know in no uncertain terms. When the rush was over, he went back to his nice-guy persona who truly cared about everyone there. It then became more a country club environment where we could all laugh and joke.
Leaders often must exhibit different leadership styles based on personality, environment, and desire for results. Sometimes the boss has a locked-in style of leading, and for the better ones, it changes based on what’s happening around them.
But, when a leader understands the environment and the subsequent approach they should take, they are able to adjust their style to create a positive work environment and deliver results. The Managerial Grid is a theory to help understand five ways to lead others.
Production-Focused or People Focused
Robert Blake and Jane Mouton developed this theory in the 1960s as a model of situational leadership based on two factors: concern for people and concern for production. They used their research to graph leadership styles on what is known as the Managerial Grid.
They rated a leader’s concern for people on a scale of one to nine on the x-axis. Next, they rated a leader’s concern for production on a scale of one to nine on the y-axis. The result was a grid consisting of 81 squares that depicted how a boss would act based on their level of focus on the two dimensions. The result was five different leadership styles. It’s easy to think some are good and some are bad, but they’re just different ways based on the situation.
Country Club Management. In the top left, are bosses who have a high concern for people but a low concern for production. These leaders are looking to create the best experience for their people, help them enjoy work, and ensure a friendly and comfortable atmosphere. They are the ones who walk around every day, greet the team, and remove obstacles, rarely mentioning the work at hand.
This style is predicated on positive interactions with employees to encourage them to be successful without the pressure of production-based conversations. The risk is that a low focus on tasks may result in low production.
I used this style as a junior-ranking action officer leading a planning team full of people who outranked me. They were all competent, capable, and knew what needed to be done. My job was simply to facilitate dialogue and a positive atmosphere to allow them to work together.
Team Management. Moving to the top right quadrant, team managers are those with a high concern for both people and production. These leaders are committed to mission success while fostering a participatory environment and caring for others. This can create employees who feel valued, empowered, trusted, and clearly know their expectations.
This style, according to Blake and Mouton, is the most effective one. Leaders here are seen as engaged, committed, and seeking organizational wins. The risk is that the leader is all-in, all-the-time, on-everything, and can burn out or seem too much to others.
I used this style when placing military medical teams into civilian hospitals during COVID. I led a small team of committed professionals on no-fail missions, travelling across country for nearly seven months straight. It required clear performance standards while managing our mental well-being.
Impoverished Management. The bottom left depicts bosses who have a low concern for both people and performance. These leaders do not focus on employee satisfaction, instead just letting them work. At the same time, they don’t clearly outline requirements, planning, or deadlines, believing the job will get done without them.
This method is obviously not preferred based on the name. Most leaders here are seen as disconnected and uncaring. However, with a proficient team who cares, it could still work without leader engagement. There are many risks, the biggest being disorganization and apathy in the ranks.
I was once assigned as the team leader for an academic group project. The atmosphere was already tense based on personalities, and I just wanted to do well without any drama. I remained in the background, let smart people do smart people things, completed the project, and moved on.
Authority-Compliance Management. This is sometimes called task management or dictatorial. In the bottom right quadrant, leaders here are focused on production above all else, at the expense of their people. The employees are a means to an end and the mission is the priority above all else. Often using direct language and clear expectations, these leaders get the job done.
The benefits of this style include employees knowing both their clear organizational goals and what success looks like. The risk is that leaders are often seen as disconnected, uncaring, and controlling, resulting in high turnover and dissatisfaction.
I worked at a distribution center once where the name of the game was the number of boxes moved. The culture was focused on clear expectations for production, and if someone couldn’t meet it, they were on the termination block. It was a hard environment to be a caring leader in.
Middle of the Road Management. The final style rests right in the center as both moderate concern for people and production. The boss cares about being successful and that their people have good morale but isn’t discouraged if neither comes to fruition. They usually get the job done and everyone feels generally satisfied at the end of the day.
This is sometimes described as maintaining balance but, in reality, it’s more being “sorta” passionate. They’re neither all in, nor all out. This could lead to average performance and morale with the job just getting done.
Let’s be honest, there have been times when we’re all in the middle. For me, after the birth of our first child, my wife and I weren’t sleeping well and were overwhelmed with a newborn. My energy was depleted and, while I tried to care at work, I was admittedly only half-there many days.
Environment Dictates Style
The original concept assumes that bosses lead in a fixed style and cannot change. This is simply not true. As illustrated by my bun-toasting example earlier, the best leaders have the ability to adjust their style based on the environment and people around them.
For the environment, sometimes the mission has to be completed above all else. In the movie Saving Private Ryan, the D-Day invasion scene sees Tom Hanks sending solider after soldier to their death to assault a pillbox. He prioritized the mission over the men. Later on, he let a German go free instead of executing him. He placed his people’s, and his own, mental health over the mission.
In reality, we often must adjust our style based on individual personalities. We can assume everyone appreciates a people-focused approach, but there are employees out there who would rather be left alone and do their work. They don’t need a long discussion about weekend plans to serve as a break. Or some would love to see you more often, but don’t need you to constantly track their work progress and give advice.
If we asked each person what level of engagement they wanted, it would certainly help us interact with them better.
The Beauty of the Grid
Understanding Blake and Mouton’s Managerial grid can help us relate to our employees as individuals and increase the productivity of environments as a whole. We’re all motivated in different ways. Some enjoy being in a country club environment at work and some just want to get the job done.
When we recognize how our approach affects employee morale and satisfaction along with mission accomplishment, we can adjust our style to meet the needs of our people and organizations. After all, that’s how the drive-thru customers get a perfectly toasted bun from happy employees.
Click here to sign up for The Maximum Standard’s weekly email where you’ll get a leadership vignette delivered for free every Tuesday morning!
We’re always looking for authors. We coach first time authors (and anyone) through the writing process if you need a little help. It’s worth taking the first step and showing interest.
This website is a personal blog and all writings, podcasts, opinions, and posts are the authors’ own and do not represent the views of the United States Army nor any other organization. Podcast music credit in this audio file is to: “Alex Productions – Legends” is under a Creative Commons license (CC BY 3.0). / @alexproductionsnocopyright
The Maximum Standard 