Should a leader be resulted oriented or people oriented? This is a very old question. "Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid" which was published in 1964, the terms used are "concern for people" and "concern for production". A little more information about the grid is as below:
The treatment of task orientation and people orientation as two independent dimensions was a major step in leadership studies. Many of the leadership studies conducted in the 1950s at the University of Michigan and the Ohio State University focused on these two dimensions.
Building on the work of the researchers at these Universities, Robert Blake and Jane Mouton (1960s) proposed a graphic portrayal of leadership styles through a managerial grid (sometimes called leadership grid). The grid depicted two dimensions of leader behaviour, concern for people (accommodating people’s needs and giving them priority) on y-axis and concern for production (keeping tight schedules) on x-axis, with each dimension ranging from low (1) to high (9).
However, the world has moved well past this discussion. If you look at the Fortune 500 companies, obviously they focused on results as well as people.
From India, Bangalore
They simply believe and talk about Leadership and its traits. "Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid", this concept is also became older than older. We can refer it but practically World has changed its dimension and Leadership style as well.
Thats what I am talking about a concept of Legitimate Leadership.
From India, Kanpur
--Only when managers are in the relationship to “give” to their people rather than “get” results out of them will their people willingly go above and beyond in pursuit of the company’s objectives.
--This “giving” is not a giving of money. It is a giving of genuine concern for the individuals (care) and enablement of them to realise the best in themselves (growth).
--It is two drops of essence, care and growth, which gives those in authority legitimacy, not money.
At the same time, leaders are not necessarily clear as to what caring for and growing their people means practically. They want to know what they can DO to enhance their legitimacy as leaders.
From India, Kanpur
He must encourage his subordinates to grow in the field of work-technically, educationally and add value to their ability.
This will help productivity and self growth. ie. a merger of personal growth and organisational benefit.
By dealing with his people on daily basis and in interactions he can know where the area of growth is needed and can guide people along.
For that a leader himself should be neutral and open minded in his dealings.
Trappings of being a senior and what flows from power should be avoided.
From India, Pune
Leaders should not count on people,instead they should create them to innovate,indulge and involve.
From India, Vadodara
Results come, if you focus on people. The 'conversion factor' in any process is people. If your results aren't as predicted / calculated then within the system(s) corrective measures can be taken and 'things' can be set aright. But, the big but, if people under-perform because the EQ is amiss, then nothing can be set aright. The biggest 'factor' you can invest in is people. The results will come!
Adjectives like professionalism, commitment,skill-sets mean nothing until people own the vision, and the management shows a sense of care, concern and comfort for its people. Follow the 3 C's, and the results will follow.
Arif ur Rehman
From Pakistan, Karachi
#AnonymousIts just simple, people will make their own politicians.
Likewise, when people are satisfied automatically results are obtained.
From India, Hyderabad