LEADERSHIP AS THE MANAGEMENT OF PROCESS AND
CULTURE: AN INTEGRATED MODEL
PETER L. MOLLOY
R. SUSAN ELLIS
University of Sydney
Graduate School of Business
Sydney. NSW, 2006 Australia
(Submitted for publication, October 1995)
Page 1
LEADERSHIP AS THE MANAGEMENT OF PROCESS AND
CULTURE: AN INTEGRATED MODEL
Leadership is reconceptualized as the management of process and thereby the
management of organization culture. That part of an organization's culture that is tied to the
leadership process is designated the leadership culture and it is argued that this construct
influences affective and performance outcomes for the organization. A model of leadership
culture is elaborated integrating constructs such as leadership style, leadership process,
leadership culture and organizational outcomes.
Page 2
LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE
In the opening to his acclaimed book Leadership, Burns (1978) describes leadership as
one of the most observed and yet least understood phenomena on earth. Rost (1991) is
appreciably more scathing, referring to the leadership literature as "confusing, discrepant,
disorganized, and unintegrated" and declaring that leadership studies are not worthy of the
title "academic discipline" (1991: 91).
The view that the leadership literature is lacking in theoretical convergence or
definitional consensus is not new, and has been expressed by a number of leading
researchers in the field over the years (Bennis, 1959; Bryman, 1986; Burns, 1978; Rost,
1991; Stogdill, 1974). This is despite an overwhelming volume of research on the subject.
As an indication, in the second edition of his Handbook on Leadership, Bass (1981) cited
4,725 leadership studies. By the third edition of the handbook, the list of studies had grown
to nearly 8,000 and filled 189 pages of references (Bass, 1990).
Rost (1991) suggests that one of the reasons for the lack of any meaningful
convergence in the field is that leadership thinking over the last 60 years has been trapped
in a paradigm that has its roots firmly in the industrial era. The fundamental premises of this
industrial paradigm are that "leadership" is the same thing as "good management", and that
leaders do the leading while followers are the recipients of leadership. As a consequence,
leaders or managers have been the focus in most theories, and researchers have tended to
ignore alternative theories that offer a more processual view of leadership that integrates the
role of the followers.
Page 3
Henrickson (1989) argues that by equating a leader with leadership we are mixing
form with process, and it is this preoccupation with looking for universal forms of
leadership rather than trying to understand the process of leadership that has prevented
leadership scholars from identifying leadership's universal nature. Burns (1978) draws
attention to this problem as well, and calls for a new theory focusing on leadership as a
process. His theory of transformational leadership is acknowledged as a major step forward
in moving leadership thinking away from the leader-follower paradigm and towards a more
dynamic, processual view of leadership (Bass, 1990; Rost, 1991). However, while
recognising the important processual nature of leadership, transformational leadership is
still criticized as failing to effectively integrate the important leader-follower relationship
(Henrickson, 1989). This paper is an attempt to develop a sound, processual theory of
leadership that integrates the roles of both the formal leader and the followers.
Organization Culture as a New Leadership Metaphor
With the wave of interest in organization culture during the 1980s, there came a new
metaphor for leadership and potentially a new leadership paradigm emerging from the
marriage of leadership with organization culture. According to one prominent organization
culture theorist, Schein "Much of what is mysterious about leadership becomes clearer if we
separate leadership from management and link leadership specifically to creating and
changing culture" (Schein, 1985: xi). De-hinging leadership from management and
somehow integrating it with culture could provide important and fresh perspectives on the
concept of leadership. Henrickson is more categorical, asserting that it is not possible to
effectively understand the nature of leadership without applying a cultural framework
(Henrickson, 1989). Before exploring the results of recent attempts to integrate leadership
and culture, it is worthwhile briefly examining the nature of organization culture.
Since Pettigrew (1979) first introduced the notion of organization culture to the
management literature, a substantial body of research literature has appeared. According to
Hatch (1993), Schein has been particularly influential because he articulated a conceptual
framework for analyzing and intervening in organization culture. Schein's conceptualization
of organization culture is now widely accepted. According to his model (Schein, 1985),
culture exists simultaneously on three levels: basic assumptions, values and artifacts. Basic
assumptions are at the deepest and most intractable level of culture, and represent taken-for-
granted beliefs about reality and human nature. Values are social principles, philosophies,
Page 4
goals and standards considered to have intrinsic worth and relate to beliefs about what
ought to occur in the organization. Artifacts are the stories, myths, symbols, dress codes and
other manifestations of the underlying values and assumptions.
According to Schein, culture develops around the actions of and interactions between
people in groups or organizations as they seek to solve problems. The problems that the
groups face and the ways they are resolved become abstracted into metaphysical
assumptions (the nature of reality, time, space and man's place in the universe) and
psychosocial assumptions (human nature, activity and relationships). These assumptions
and their attendant values and artifacts become the essence and the definition of an
organization's culture.
Considerable research has dealt with measuring culture at the value level (Hofstede,
Neuijen, Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990; O'Reilly, Chatman and Caldwell, 1991; Sheridan, 1992).
However, the usefulness of identifying value profiles for organizations in terms of their
ability to differentiate observed behavior and important affective or performance outcomes
for organizations has been questioned (Sheridan, 1992). Hatch (1993) advocates a more
dynamic, process-oriented approach to culture, than that offered by the Schein model.
Culture and Leadership: Towards an Integrated Model
Given Schein's view that culture crystallizes around the interactions between people in
groups trying to solve problems, it is not unreasonable to expect that leadership and culture
would be closely related constructs. Some researchers believe that they are so closely
related as to be inseparable (Bass and Avolio, 1993; Henrickson, 1989; Schein, 1985).
Recently, researchers have attempted to integrate leadership and culture into one theoretical
framework. However, no convincing unifying theory has yet emerged that effectively
integrates the constructs.
The principal nexus proposed between leadership and culture is a causal one, where
Page 5
culture is influenced by or can be viewed as an outcome of leadership (Bass and Avolio,
1993; Brown, 1992; Henrickson, 1989; Rotemberg and Saloner, 1993; Schein, 1985). The
idea that the leader is a "coach" and a manipulator of corporate values emerges clearly from
the culture literature. Indeed, Schein asserts that manipulating culture is the "unique and
essential function of leadership", and sees "culture management" as a critical facet of
leadership (1985: 317). Henrickson concludes that "leadership is the process by which
culture is created and reformulated" (1989: 302).
The close link between leadership and culture has also been exploited in classifying
cultures. Bass and Avolio (1993) identify organization cultures consistent with the Burns'
transformational and transactional leadership models (Burns, 1978) and describe and
contrast "transformational cultures" and "transactional cultures".
Others have posited the idea that leadership may be an expression or form of culture
(Freeman and Boeker, 1984; Henrickson, 1989; Ichikawa, 1993). Indeed, if dimensions of
leadership are pertinent to the classification of cultures (Bass and Avolio, 1993), it may be
that the constructs have a common underlying nature or that one is a form of the other.
Henrickson (1989) describes such an isomorphic congruence between the constructs, and
proposes that when viewed as a process, leadership is a cultural expression. By adopting a
process view of leadership and culture, Henrickson identifies the underlying processual
dimensions of the two constructs and concludes that they are indeed congruent.
Despite the clear common ground between leadership and culture, no substantive
operational theory has yet emerged that integrates the two fields. It is not surprising that this
is a difficult task. According to Schein (1985), culture is a very abstract concept while
leadership, although ultimately practice-oriented, is plagued by a lack of consensus as to
core theory and a large belt of seemingly constantly evolving middle-range theories (Rost,
1991).
Henrickson (1989) advocates that the only way to effectively understand leadership
and identify its essential nature is to look at it through a cultural frame. He uses a
Page 6
multidisciplinary analysis to distil a number of dimensions that are common to both
leadership and culture, and conclude that the two are isomorphically congruent. However,
we believe that although abstracting the elements of leadership and culture to the point
where they are congruent may point to an underlying commonality of the constructs, it does
not directly lead to any new substantive practical theory.
Our strategy to building theory in this case is the opposite to this. Our approach is to
drill down into one practical and process-oriented middle-range leadership theory, and view
the strata through a cultural window. We feel that the cultural window is valid and useful,
but argue that we can learn more about the nature of the phenomenon by observing the
process of leadership in practice, rather than distilling its components to a degree of
abstraction where they become congruent with our frame of reference. We therefore define
our objective as the development of a culture-based leadership theory that is rooted in the
practice and process of leadership.
One leadership model that shows good promise for prospecting such an integrated
theory is Blake and Mouton's Grid model. As early as 1964, they elaborated a model of
leadership that translated in practice into a process explicitly designed to transform
organization culture through changing leadership practices (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Blake
& Mouton, 1981b; Blake, Mouton, Barnes & Greiner, 1964). In fact, Grid has two distinct
manifestations: as a model of individual leadership style and as a model of organization
development (OD). It is proposed that when viewed as an OD process rather than simply a
leadership style model, Blake and Mouton's Grid model provides a rich and distinctly
processual framework for understanding leadership that allows concepts from culture to be
readily integrated. Using this framework, it is our aim in this paper to elucidate a new
model in which leadership is conceptualized both as the management of process and
culture.
Whether viewed as a model of leadership style or OD, Grid has not been extensively
tested (Filley, House and Kerr, 1976; Guyot, 1978; Keller, 1978), and the few rigorous
studies have generated mixed or contradictory conclusions (Filley, House and Kerr, 1976).
Page 7
Most of the significant studies have focused longitudinally on Grid as an OD process rather
than as a model of leadership style (Beer and Kleisath, 1971; Blake et al., 1964; Hart, 1974;
Keller, 1978). We discuss these studies in more detail later in this paper in the context of
our proposed model. The limited empirical testing for Grid could partially be attributed to
the difficulty of constructing and controlling rigorous longitudinal studies to test the model
as an OD process. It may also be that its role as a research model has been obscured by its
duality as both a taxonomic tool for leadership style and as a process for changing
organization culture. Finally, it is possible that its research role has been depreciated by its
extensive commercialization over the years (Blake, 1992; Blake & Mouton, 1985; Guyot,
1978; Iles and Johnston, 1989; Kur, 1981; Lester, 1991).
It may also be that in the 1960s leadership thinking was not sufficiently evolved to
recognize the potential of the model. Indeed, Iles and Johnston suggest that the Grid OD
model was ahead of its time, and that it provides a valuable framework for understanding
current managerial concepts. They state (1989:32):
..the work of two major OD theorists and practitioners, Blake and Mouton, directly
prefigures much of the "culture and excellence" writings of Peters, Waterman and
Austin, even down to almost equivalent phrases...Even in 1967, Blake and Mouton
were writing about "organisational excellence through effective management
behaviour. The authors express their interest in the "style of organisational cultures",
not just in individual management styles, and consider steps by which companies may
develop their cultures and business practices.
We believe that there is a case for revisiting the Grid model. We propose that in
endeavoring to understand the nature of the relationship between leadership and culture,
and potentially developing a theory integrating these fields, much can be gained from an
understanding of Grid OD and its role in translating a model of leadership style into a
process of cultural change. As a starting point, we need to understand the leadership style
model which Blake and Mouton use as a springboard for their Grid OD process.
Page 8
THE MANAGERIAL GRID: A MODEL OF LEADERSHIP STYLE
Grid was originally developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton between 1958 and
1960 and first published in 1964 (Blake & Mouton, 1964). It is a two-dimensional model
that predicts five core leadership styles, as shown in Figure 1. The five leadership styles are
represented by a numerical shorthand, based on their co-ordinates within the two-
dimensional grid. Commonly used descriptive labels for each style are also shown. The 9,9
("Team Management") style is espoused by Blake and Mouton as the ideal leadership style
and the "one best way" of leadership.
FIGURE 1
The Managerial Grid¨ a
Concern for
People
Concern for Production
High
Low
HighLow
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Country ClubManagement
TeamManagement
Organization ManManagement
Authority-Obedience
ImpoverishedManagement
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
5,5
9,91,9
1,1 9,1
a Source: The New Managerial Grid by Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton,
Scientific Methods Inc. 1981. Reproduced by permission.
Page 9
The two dimensions underlying the model are dubbed "Concern for Production"
reflecting an underlying attitude toward achieving results, and "Concern for People"
referring to the thoughtfulness for others applied when leadership is exercised. According to
Blake and Mouton, the attitudinal nature of the axes distinguishes the Grid model from the
earlier Fleishman model (Fleishman, 1957a, 1957b; Fleishman and Peters, 1962) wherein
the dimensions are defined in behavioral terms. Blake and Mouton view the Fleishman
model as one that predicts leadership styles that are a mixture or simple addition of two
behavioral dimensions, while the Grid model is seen by them as an integration akin to a
chemical compounding of two underlying attitudinal dimensions. Although the axes are
attitudinal in the Grid model, their integration results in distinct behavioral dispositions
(leadership styles). Blake and Mouton assert that only by conceptualizing the underlying
dimensions as attitudinal is it possible to predict an ideal leadership style that is a
synergistic integration of its underlying dimensions (1982b).
An important feature which Grid shares with the Fleishman model is its espousal of an
ideal style of leadership. This was subsequently referred to as the "high-high" leader
paradigm and was the object of some criticism during the 1970s (Larson, Hunt and Osborn,
1976; Nystrom, 1978). However, this normative feature differentiates the Grid and
Fleishman models from the later contingency models that, although again generally based
on 2x2 models, offer no ideal approach. Instead, they assert that the most effective
leadership approach depends on situational factors. According to Blake and Mouton
(1982b), the contingency theories and Grid represent fundamentally opposite conceptions in
leadership theory. This may account for the heated debate between Blake and Mouton and
Hersey and Blanchard, the proponents of one popular contingency theory (Blake & Mouton,
1981a, 1981c, 1982a, 1982b; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969, 1982a, 1982b).
Page 10
Characterizing Leadership Style
Blake and Mouton provide a questionnaire designed to assess individual style
according to their model (1981b). The questionnaire taps into six dimensions labelled
"Decisions", "Convictions'", "Conflict", "Temper", "Humor" and "Effort" and overall
descriptions of the attitudes and behavior characterizing each style, are synthesized as
shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1 Grid Leadership Style Descriptions
9,9 I place high value on sound, creative decisions that result in understanding and agreement. I listen for and seek out ideas, opinions and attitudes different from my own. I have strong convictions but respond to sounder ideas than my own by changing my mind. When conflict arises, I try to identify reasons for it and seek to resolve underlying causes. When aroused, I contain myself even though my impatience is visible. My humour fits the situation and gives perspective; I retain a sense of humour even under pressure. I exert vigorous effort and others join in.
9,1 I expect decisions I make to be treated as final. I stand up for my ideas, opinions, and attitudes, even though it sometimes results in stepping on toes. When conflict arises, I try to cut it off or win my position. When things are not going right, I defend, resist and come back with counter-arguments. My humor is hard-hitting. I drive others and myself.
1,9 I support decisions which promote good relations. I embrace opinions, attitudes and ideas of others rather than push my own. I avoid generating conflict; but, when it does appear, I try to soothe feelings to keep people together. Because of the disapproval tensions can produce, I react in a warm and friendly way. My humor shifts attention away from the serious side. I prefer to support others rather than initiate action.
5,5 I search for workable, even though not perfect, decisions. When others hold ideas, opinions, or attitudes different from my own, I try to meet them halfway. When conflict arises, I try to find fair solutions that accommodate others. Under tension, I feel unsure and anxious about how to meet others' expectations. My humor sells me or my position. I seek to maintain a steady pace.
1,1 I accept the decisions of others with indifference. I avoid taking sides by not revealing opinions, attitudes, and ideas. When conflict arises, I try to remain neutral. By remaining uninvolved I rarely get stirred up. My humor is seen as rather pointless. I put out enough effort to get by.
Page 11
Blake and Mouton also differentiate between dominant and backup styles, where the
dominant style is the one normally and most typically adopted by the individual and the
backup is one adopted in stressful circumstances, when the stakes are low or under other
circumstances (Blake & McCanse, 1991; Blake & Mouton, 1981b, 1993).
The Grid leadership style model was subsequently expanded to include two other
approaches called 9+9 Paternalism (designated "9+9" to indicate its additive rather than
integrative nature) and Opportunism, a model that can incorporate several Grid approaches
opportunistically depending upon the situation (Blake & McCanse, 1991). The addition of
these leadership styles to the model may well have reflected a perceived prevalence of such
behavioral dispositions and represented an attempt to stretch the model to embrace these
two styles. However, rather than strengthen the model by broadening its scope, it may well
stretch it beyond its conceptual foundations. Neither Paternalism nor Opportunism is
predicted within the integrative, two-dimensional model, as originally conceptualized.
Further, the addition of the 9+9 style represents the acknowledgement of an additive,
Fleishman-like approach rather than the distinctive, integrative approach that was seen by
Blake and Mouton as essential to their model.
Grid as a Model of Conflict Resolution
Recently, Grid has resurfaced in the research literature as an important model of
conflict resolution style. Van de Vliert and Kabanoff refer to Grid's "striking comeback as a
leading thesis in the literature on conflict management" (1990: 199). When applied as a
conflict resolution model, the Grid model is reinterpreted with the five core leadership
styles replaced by five specific conflict resolution strategies dubbed collaborating,
competing, accommodating, compromising and avoiding for the 9,9, 9,1, 1,9, 5,5 and 1,1
positions respectively.
Page 12
Van de Vliert and Kabanoff (1990) note that in the Grid model the axes are defined as
interval rather than ordinal scales, and state that the individual styles represent specific
points rather than areas on the grid. This allows the styles to be pinpointed geometrically,
and provided the opportunity for Van de Vliert and Kabanoff to test the internal validity of
the model by reproducing the locations of the five styles using intercorrelations as
surrogates of distance. Their analysis yielded geometric locations of the styles that were
reasonably consistent with the original 2x2 model lending some support to the validity of
the model.
There is little doubt that conflict resolution style is one important facet of leadership
style, and that conflict resolution style may be one useful way to characterize and
discriminate the five Grid leadership styles. Indeed, it could be argued that conflict
resolution style is close to the essence of Grid in operation. In Grid training seminars, for
example, the issues of conflict and conflict resolution are strongly emphasized, and
individuals are intensively trained in conflict resolving strategies.
However, other characterization dimensions are also implied or stated in the literature
and practice of Grid and these include critique style and communication style. Like conflict
resolution style, critique or feedback style is regarded as particularly important (Blake &
McCanse, 1991), and the five core Grid styles have been explicitly distilled into a critique
grid where the 5 positions represent critique styles (The Employee Participation Grid
Seminar, Learning Administrator's Guide 1990). Communication style has also been used to
profile leaders according to the Grid model (Jensen, 1993). Therefore, it is our view that the
Grid leadership style model can potentially be decomposed into a number of important
facets, and conflict resolving style is only one of these.
Grid: More than a Taxonomic Tool
Whether viewed as a comprehensive model of leadership style or as a more restricted
model of conflict resolution, critique or communication style, the approaches so far
Page 13
described all treat the Grid model as essentially a taxonomic tool for leadership style based
on a relatively simplistic 2x2 grid. As observed by Rost, developing two-dimensional
diagrams of leadership style seems to have been a major ritual in leadership studies over the
years and in his view helped to "further the myth that progress is being made in leadership
research" (1991: 33). Certainly, the Grid model has the look and feel of a number of these
two-dimensional models and has been generally typecast as framework for classification of
leadership style (Bass, 1990).
However, the Grid model has a much richer incarnation than simply as a window on
individual leadership style. It is this manifestation of Grid as an OD and cultural change
process that in our view offers fertile ground for germinating an integrated theory of culture
and leadership.
GRID AS AN OD PROCESS
Grid OD is the term applied to the process by which the 9,9 leadership model is
introduced into and operationalized in organizations. Blake and McCanse (1991) explicitly
differentiate Grid's role as a framework for leadership style from its manifestation as an OD
process, and outline the six phase program of Grid OD, beginning with the Grid training
seminar (Phase 1). The other five phases are referred to as "team building", "interface
development", "designing an ideal strategic organization model", "implementing
development" and "consolidation".
Grid Training
A typical Phase 1 Grid training program runs for five days. During this period,
participants are subjected to an intensive program of lectures and team assignments.
Initially, the assignments focus on pre-seminar reading material about the Grid leadership
style model. This is usually one of the editions of The Managerial Grid by Blake and
Page 14
Mouton or the more recent text by Blake and McCanse (1991). The pre-reading is itself
challenging involving thirty to forty hours of study. Upon arrival at the training venue
participants are assigned to a specific group of five or six people, the composition of which
is designed to provide a cross-section of skills and knowledge. Accordingly, these groups
are referred to by Blake and Mouton as "diagonal-slice learning groups" (1979). Apart from
one exercise, the participants remain in the same groups throughout the five days of
training.
Beer and Kleisath (1971) note that a distinctive feature of Grid OD is the fact that it is
an outgrowth of T group or sensitivity training. They state that unlike T group or sensitivity
training Grid OD provides a well-defined cognitive framework and a structured training
environment. According to them, this helps minimize the anxiety and possibility of
psychological damage to the individuals involved. Despite this, Grid OD's parentage in
sensitivity training is certainly evident in the nature and style of the training process
employed.
Initial exercises at the Phase 1 seminar involve questionnaires pertaining to the pre-
seminar reading material. The questions are designed to be ambiguous and contentious in
order to foster conflict and allow participants to practice conflict resolving skills. "Conflict"
in the Grid OD context refers to any situation where differing views exist and need to be
resolved. The cross-sectional composition of the teams tends to ensure a degree of diversity
of views. The objective is to encourage participants to candidly confront the underlying
issues behind conflicts rather than focus solely on advocated opinions. Team members are
encouraged to share and combine their databases of information, and arrive at a consensus
team opinion derived from a broader base of information than that held by any individual
team member. Theoretically, this should lead to a higher quality opinion than that held
independently by any individual in the team. In Grid parlance, this is referred to as synergy,
and the process by which synergy is achieved is referred to by Blake and Mouton as "9,9
teamwork" (1981b) or "teamwork plus" (Blake & McCanse, 1991). They explicitly
differentiate this notion of teamwork from the conventional concept of teamwork which
Page 15
simply implies all team members working together in an additive, coordinated fashion. The
9,9 teamwork concept implies coordinated action where the individuals not only contribute
that part of the process for which they are responsible but they also accept responsibility for
the whole process. Blake and McCanse describe this as an "interdependent concept of
teamwork" and clearly distinguish it from the traditional view of teamwork. However, to
avoid potential confusion we will refer to it here as the 9,9 leadership process.
The generally espoused skills or processes, required for this 9,9 leadership process,
include (Blake & McCanse, 1991; Blake & Mouton, 1981a, 1981b):
Active listening. This entails listening to understand as distinct from listening for
weaknesses in others' arguments in order to formulate counter-arguments or giving the
impression of listening while preparing an advocacy position.
Open mindedness. This essentially involves refraining from forming a firm opinion
until all the facts have been obtained.
Inquiry. This takes the form of clarifying others' views and probing into underlying
rationale rather than solely advocating opinions.
Candid critique. This means providing non-judgmental feedback, unencumbered by
status or social reticence.
Focus on facts. Participants need to step away from or forego their opinions and focus
on facts and concrete examples, not opinions.
Confronting conflicts. Participants need to be prepared to expose and confront the
underlying causes of conflict; these may be differences in attitudes, beliefs and values as
well as differences in base knowledge.
The Real Agenda of Grid Training
The apparent cognitive learning goals of Grid OD training, such as understanding the
model or obtaining the correct answers in the questionnaires, are not the real agenda of the
training process. The real agenda relates to the behavioral and attitudinal changes that are
Page 16
instilled in participants as a result of the interactive process. The 2x2 Grid leadership model
provides only a convenient cognitive framework that is largely secondary to the process
(Beer and Kleisath, 1971). It is used as a framework for helping trainees contrast leadership
styles, understand those styles and attendant practices that are productive and develop a
commitment to the 9,9 leadership style at an individual level and the 9,9 leadership process
at a team level. Against this backdrop, the primary agenda and emphasis of Grid OD is skill
development and attitudinal change. The training is designed to reinforce those skills,
attitudes, beliefs and values that are consistent with a 9,9 style and leadership process
model.
As another indicator of the secondary importance of the 2x2 model per se, at no stage
are participants explicitly classified in terms of their individual Grid styles. Moreover, the
whole issue of style becomes secondary; participants learn from the training experience that
styles of individual behavior can vary within as well as between individuals. In contrast, the
9,9 leadership process model transcends individual style differences, operating at an inter-
person process level rather than an individual behavior level. This inter-person focus for
behavior provides participants with what appears to be a non-threatening, cognitively sound
and situationally stable approach to interacting in teams.
A MODEL OF LEADERSHIP PROCESS
9,9 leadership process is viewed by Blake and Mouton as a model of interaction in a
team or group demanding individual skills consistent with a 9,9 leadership style and
supported by a shared set of attitudes, values and beliefs. The 9,9 skills which Grid OD
endeavors to develop have already been identified. In addition, the attitudes, values and
beliefs it attempts to instil can be summarized as follows (Blake & McCanse, 1991; Blake
& Mouton, 1981a, 1981b).
Leadership as universal responsibility. All team members are responsible for the
process, not only the formal leader.
Page 17
Consensus. Decisions should be based on agreement and understanding of all those
involved.
Diversity. Diversity of views and ideas is an asset and not something to be avoided or
overcome.
Creativity. Creativity and experimentation are things to be fostered
Trust. Trust is essential to providing the environment in which 9,9 leadership process
can operate.
Productivity through synergy. The team together can outperform any one individual.
Feedback. Candid feedback is a vital ingredient to individual and team performance.
Participation. The participation of team members in decision-making is based on their
ability to contribute to the quality of a decision or their stake in the outcome of the decision
Excellence. The team is committed to excellence as the standard.
Critical Features of the 9,9 Leadership Process
A 9,9 leadership process model implies leadership as a teamwide responsibility, and
not as something exclusively vested in the formal leader of a team. This conception of
leadership clearly breaks away from the industrial paradigm of leadership as defined by
Rost (1991). In the 9,9 leadership process model, if a decision is forced through without
appropriate consensus (possible a 9,1 approach) or if a poor decision is made because the
underlying issues are not adequately confronted in order to avoid upsetting morale (a 1,9
approach), then the entire team is considered responsible for the dysfunctional leadership
process. In either case, the dysfunctional leadership process could have been avoided by
other team members behaving in a 9,9 fashion, for example by the use of critique and
clarifying behavior. In a team that espouses 9,9 values and seeks to operate in a way
consistent with 9,9 leadership process, all team members are considered responsible for
leadership, in the sense that everyone is responsible for ensuring that interactions in the
team occur in a 9,9 fashion.
Page 18
Apart from this notion of dispersed teamwide responsibility for leadership, another
feature of 9,9 leadership process is that it involves dimensions other than those at the level
of overt behavior. It is also explicitly grounded in a set of values and beliefs that act as the
guiding principles for behavior in an environment where the 9,9 leadership process is
operating. In this way, 9,9 leadership process offers a distinctive and critical bridge with
organization culture.
Finally, 9,9 leadership process as an outcome of Grid OD refers to the nature of the
interactions between team members and is differentiated from individual leadership style.
Individual style, especially of the formal team leader, could certainly have a significant
effect on the nature of the interactions in a team, but it is conceptualized by us as a separate
variable from the nature of these interactions. 9,9 leadership process can be thought of as
operating at the inter-individual level of process, rather than the intra-individual level of
disposition or style. The definition of leadership implied by the 9,9 leadership process
model is distinctively processual.
Leadership as The Management of Process
What is implied by the Grid training process and its objectives is that the 9,9
leadership style at the individual level translates at the team level into a 9,9 leadership
process. In other words, in a very practical way the Grid model points to a distinction
between two conceptions of leadership: the leadership process at team level and leadership
style at the individual level. The Grid 9,9 leadership process model suggests a model of
leadership where leadership is manifested and characterized as a team-level process and not
only as an individual orientation. The characterization criteria could be the communication,
critique, conflict resolving and other processes that ultimately occur in the team rather than
the disposition of individuals.
A concept of leadership is implied where the focus is on a disembodied process rather
than an individual style; where individuals influence the process, but the process is defined
Page 19
by what happens between them, rather than by their individual behavior; and where
leadership is redefined as the management of process rather than the management of people.
Finally, leadership as the management of process is a responsibility shared by all
participants, and not just vested in the formal leader.
Such a conception of leadership is not entirely novel. While the mainstream of
leadership thinking has continued to focus on leader behavior as leadership, deviant views
alluding to a more processual view of leadership have intermittently surfaced on the
leadership landscape (Bogardus, 1934; Cartwright and Zander, 1953; Cattell, 1951; Foster,
1989; Henrickson, 1989; Hollander, 1978; Jacobs, 1970; Kracke, 1978; Rost, 1991). For
example, Cattell's theory of group syntality sought to measure leadership as followers and
leaders operating as a group rather than the leader alone (1951). Foster stated that
leadership "does not reside in an individual, but in the relationship between individuals"
(1989: 46), while Rost (1991) elaborated a post-industrial leadership paradigm
incorporating a leadership concept where the persuasion process is multidirectional and not
exclusively vested in the formal leader.
The 9,9 leadership process conceptualization of leadership implied by Grid OD and
proposed by us is depicted in Figure 2, and is contrasted with a simple representation of
classical leadership thinking (the industrial paradigm), and our interpretation of Rost's
proposed "post-industrial paradigm".
FIGURE 2
Leadership Paradigms
Page 20
Industrial Paradigm Post-Industrial Paradigm 9,9 Leadership Process
The arrows in Figure 2 are intended to indicate the direction of persuasive processes
within a team or group. Here, we define "persuasive processes" as those communication,
critique, conflict resolving and other interactive processes that ultimately influence the
direction or nature of team activity. This is consistent with definitions of leadership as an
influence relationship (Rost, 1991), and where influence is defined as the process of using
persuasion in order to have an impact on the other people in the relationship (Bell, 1976). In
the 9,9 leadership process model, persuasion is conceived to occur as a result of the pooling
of data within the team and the influence of that data pool on team members, rather than
individual advocacy directed at other team members. This is an important distinction of the
9,9 leadership process model: opinions (the outcome of the persuasion process) at the
individual level are reserved until data is pooled and it is the pooled database that influences
individual opinion. In effect, the pooled database acts as the exclusive medium for
influence. Blake and Mouton argue that, through this process, a powerful and committed
teamwide consensus is reached based on universal agreement and understanding.
Page 21
The 9,9 perspective implies a new definition of leader behavior as the management of
the persuasive process rather than leading or influencing individuals. In the 9,9 model, ideal
leader behavior would be the expression of those behaviors, values and attitudes that foster
9,9 skills and values and lead to 9,9 persuasive processes in the team. The 9,9 model sees
"good leadership" as the management of process rather than people: the fostering, nurturing
and maintaining of an environment where trust, diversity, excellence and other 9,9 values
are valued and where 9,9 skills are reinforced.
This process conceptualization of leadership effectively abstracts leadership away
from an influence concept that is limited to one-on-one influence processes and into a more
deconstructed concept of influence where the process is the focus rather than the
individuals. We believe that this abstracted processual view of leadership naturally and
effectively integrates the leader-follower relationship into a leadership model, overcoming
criticisms levelled at alternative theories that have endeavored to be processual
(Henrickson, 1989). As discussed below, it also accommodates a conception of leadership
as a form of culture.
Does this conception of leadership as the management of team-level process rather
than people have generalizability beyond the 9,9 model? Our answer is a tentative yes. For
example, and using the Grid leadership style model as a framework, a 9,1 approach to
leadership involves managing the persuasive process in a very direct and controlling
fashion. Rather than the pooled data driving the persuasive process as in the 9,9 model,
persuasion is effected by directives from above, rank to resolve conflicts and close
supervision of performance. Rather than diversity and trust being valued, compliance,
homogeneity and distrust are the norms. Similar analyses could be developed for the other
Blake and Mouton Grid styles.
A MODEL OF LEADERSHIP CULTURE
It is proposed that the preceding analysis points to a new theoretical framework for
integrating leadership and culture, and indeed to a new concept of leadership. When
discussing 9,9 leadership process we cannot satisfactorily describe it as a leadership style. It
represents an approach to interactive influence that pervades the inter-person space and taps
into a variety of processes, values and beliefs. It seems to make sense to talk about 9,9
leadership process as a type of "culture" operating in a team.
Page 22
As indicated earlier, a number of researchers have attempted to conceptualize culture
as an outcome of leadership practices. We concur, and go further to suggest that leadership
practices at the individual level affect one important facet of organization culture: the
leadership facet. We conceptualize a distinct component of culture, i.e., a group of
assumptions values and artifacts, that is principally affected by team-level leadership
processes and directly reflects and perpetuates those processes. We refer to this component
of culture as the leadership culture. Schein asserts that "culture management" is the critical
role of a leader; we concur, and offer a definition of leadership not only as the management
of process but as the management of leadership culture through this management of process.
By conceptualizing leadership as a process that is both dissociated from individual
style and grounded in values and beliefs, it is possible to establish the elusive bridge
between leadership and culture. The nature of the leadership process directly affects and
reflects a specific underlying set of values, assumptions and even artifacts that are a subset
of the entire pool of values, assumptions and artifacts comprising the organization's culture.
This particular subset of the organization's culture we refer to as the leadership culture.
Blake and Mouton (1981b) refer to Grid OD as a means of changing organization
culture. It is proposed here that Grid OD does indeed change organization culture by
modifying one team-level component of the overall culture: the leadership culture. Grid OD
changes leadership culture by moving individuals towards a leadership style that promotes
9,9 leadership process and thereby leads to a 9,9 leadership culture. The more often
individual team members behave in a way consistent with the 9,9 leadership style model,
the greater the prevalence of 9,9 leadership process at the team level and therefore the
greater the prevalence of a 9,9 leadership culture. It could be posited then that these changes
in leadership culture would lead to positive changes in affective and performance outcomes
for the organization.
It is apparent that leadership process and leadership culture are mutually embedded
constructs and difficult to separate operationally: leadership process determines the
leadership culture, but is also driven and perpetuated by the leadership culture. Individual
Page 23
behaviors as inputs or reactions to the process are driven by assumptions, expectations and
values implied by the leadership culture as are the interpretations of team members about
the nature of the ensuing persuasive interactions; these interpretations in turn influence
assumptions, expectations and values. In our development of a model of leadership culture,
leadership process and leadership culture are treated as separate constructs although it could
cogently be argued that leadership process is a surrogate of leadership culture and in
practical terms defines leadership culture.
It should be noted that both leadership process and the attendant leadership culture are
seen by us principally as team-level phenomena; that is, leadership culture is a component
of the overall organization culture that primarily originates in, is driven by, emanates from
and perpetuates team-level leadership process. Although team-level leadership process
could clearly have effects outside the team and thereby influence the leadership culture in
other teams, it is proposed that the primary source and identity of leadership cultures within
an organization are the leadership processes operating at team level. The term team is used
by us here to designate those clusters of individuals within an organization that interact with
each other on a regular basis, share common goals and provide for each other the principal
sources of processes and perceptions about processes such as critique, communication and
conflict resolution. Is this an appropriate unit of analysis for our purposes? The question of
what constitutes the appropriate unit for cultural analysis is dealt with by Schein (1985). He
proposes that culture is a property of a stable social unit which through shared experiences
holds a shared metaphysical view. Thus he suggests that in the context of culture, relevant
groups within an organization are those that are relatively stable and share experiences
leading to shared views of the world. Therefore, in the context of our attempted cultural
view of leadership, our definition of a team seems to be consistent with what Schein would
consider an appropriate unit of analysis.
Although not explicitly identified by Blake and Mouton, the concept of a team-level
leadership culture can be inferred from some of their writings and from the practice of Grid
OD. For example, Blake and McCanse refer to "team culture" (1991: 306) when identifying
Page 24
the team environment in which a 9,9 leadership process operates. However, the strongest
evidence comes from Grid OD training seminars, wherein participants are provided with a
50 items (60 items if 9+9 is included) questionnaire titled An Evaluation of Organization
Culture. The items in the questionnaire provide descriptions of leadership processes
consistent with each of the five basic Grid leadership cultures and are arranged under 10
headings: authority, objectives, communication, conflict, coordination, critique,
commitment, productivity, cost consciousness, creativity.
By way of example, the descriptions for the 9,9 and 9,1 critique, conflict resolution
and communication processes are shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2
Items Measuring 9,9 and 9,1 Leadership Processes Item 9,9 Description 9,1 Description
Critique Critiques of performance are for reviewing how activities are being managed in order to strengthen them
Critique by inspection permits performance to be pinpointed for weaknesses or failure to measure up
Communication People are well informed and participate in problem solving analysis and decision making; needed information is communicated up, down, and sideways
Communication is one way, on a need-to-know basis; little feedback is sought from subordinates or others
Conflict Points of disagreement are made explicit and reasons for them are identified to resolve underlying causes
Rank is used to cut off conflict and to decide between different viewpoints
Classifying Leadership Cultures
The prevalence of the 9,9 leadership process in a team could be assessed using process
descriptions such as those in Table 2 and related to relevant outcome variables such as team
Page 25
performance, trust, job satisfaction and commitment. However, the opportunity exists to
develop a more comprehensive leadership culture model derived from the Grid leadership
style model. Although Grid OD is specifically designed to focus on delivering a 9,9
leadership culture to teams within an organization, it may be that the other four Grid styles
can also be faithfully translated from individual leadership styles into leadership process
and culture variants. If this were the case, we could equally posit the presence or absence of
a 9,1, 1,9, 5,5 or 1,1 leadership culture and measure the presence or prevalence of such
alternative leadership cultures using process descriptions such as those in Table 2.
That is, persuasive processes such as the nature of communications, critique, conflict
resolution and other dimensions of interaction in the team, could be used to characterize and
classify leadership cultures into one of the five variants of culture predicted by the Grid
model. Accordingly, five basic leadership cultures are proposed in line with the Grid model.
These are referred to here as "9,9 leadership process", "9,1 authority", "1,9 country club",
"5,5 compromise" and "1,1 avoidance".
Towards a Comprehensive Leadership Culture Model
The concept of leadership culture is intuitively seductive, but a more concrete
definition is required. In order to more fully understand and define leadership process the
concept of leadership incidents is invoked. A leadership incident is deemed to occur
whenever a team member engages in an interaction with other team members that is
persuasive, i.e., influences the direction or nature of team activity.
This concept is consistent with the broader concept of events as elaborated by Smith
and Peterson (1989). Events are conceptualized by them as segments of organizational
processes as perceived and given meaning by the individuals involved. Leadership incidents
are those events that contribute to and comprise team members' perceptions about the
overall leadership (persuasive) process in their team. This concept of leadership incidents
excludes team activity that does not involve persuasive interaction between individual team
Page 26
members.
Using leadership incidents as a unit of analysis we can conceptualize leadership
process as the composite perception by team members of leadership incidents over time.
Individual leadership incidents could be characterized based on the communication,
critique, conflict resolving or other persuasive processes which prevail, as incidents
consistent with one of the five Grid leadership process options. Then, by classifying every
incident in a team over time into one of the five Grid categories, we could identify the
dominant (most prevalent) leadership process in the team. It may be possible and arguably
more sound to develop a profile of the overall leadership process operating in the team as a
composite of the five process variants predicted by the Grid model. For example, based on
the leadership incidents over a given period, one could envisage that an overall team
leadership process might be described as operating 50% of the time in a 9,9 mode, 20% 9,1,
20% 1,9, 10% 5,5 and rarely or never in a 1,1 way. Leadership process would then be
conceptualized as an overall composite of the five process variants, assuming these five
variants exist. This would provide a surrogate of the dominant leadership culture in the
team.
We therefore define leadership process as the total pool of leadership incidents in a
team over time as perceived by team members. Leadership incidents are individual
persuasive interactions between team members and are the outcome of the interplay
between the leadership styles of individual team members. Leadership incidents and
therefore leadership process can be characterized in terms of the types of conflict resolving,
critique, communication and other persuasive processes that occur.
Leadership culture is then defined as the translation of leadership process into a set of
assumptions and expectations, values and artifacts. This set of cultural reflections of the
leadership process is a subset of the total organization culture.
A model relating constructs such as Grid OD, Grid leadership style, process and
culture and organizational outcomes and incorporating the notion of leadership incidents is
Page 27
proposed in Figure 3.
Page 28
FIGURE 3
Model of Leadership Culture
LeadershipStyles
of OtherTeam
Members
LeadershipProcess
OrganizationCulture
LeadershipCultureValues
AttitudesBeliefs
Skills
Grid OD
ValuesAttitudes
Beliefs
Skills
FormalLeader’sDominant
LeadershipStyle
LeadershipIncidents
TeamPerformance
AffectiveOutcomes
Individual Style Level Team ProcessLevel
Culture Outcomes
Culture FactorsOutside Team
Non-cultureFactors
Personalityand Needs
Personalityand Needs
The model identifies relevant variables operating at several levels: individual, process
and culture and organizational outcomes. The model depicts leadership culture as a subset
of the overall organizational culture, and posits that team-level leadership culture has a
substantial influence on affective and performance outcomes for an organization.
Leadership style at the individual level, is viewed as being directly affected by
variables that include innate factors (such as personality and needs), modifiable attitudinal
and cognitive factors (attitudes, values and beliefs), and learned skills (particularly
communication and problem solving skills). The relationship between personality and
leadership style is well recognized (Burns, 1978). Kabanoff (1987) also recently reported on
Page 29
the relationship between Grid leadership styles and innate factors such as Machiavellianism,
locus of control and expressed needs for control and inclusion. However, it is proposed that
these innate variables are unlikely to be significantly affected by Grid OD. It is posited that
a process such as Grid OD primarily influences attitudes, values, beliefs and skills, and
thereby influences individual leadership style (behavioral dispositions).
The model presents the formal leader's dominant (as distinct from backup) style, as
one significant variable directly influencing the nature of the leadership incidents in a team
and therefore the leadership process and culture in a team. However, it is proposed that the
leadership styles of all team members come into play in determining the ultimate nature of
the leadership process through leadership incidents. As with the formal leader, the
leadership styles of all team members are also posited to be affected by Grid OD through
modification of values, attitudes, beliefs and skills. They are also seen as moderating the
relationship between the formal leader's dominant style and team leadership culture, by
influencing leadership incidents and therefore process. For example, a formal leader or
manager disposed to a dominant 1,9 leadership style will not necessarily cause a 1,9
leadership culture to predominate in the team. What prevails will partly depend on the
disposition of the other team members and their willingness to allow the communication,
critique, conflict resolution and other persuasive processes offered by such a style to
predominate and determine overall communication, critique and conflict resolution process
in the team. Similarly, one could envisage a situation where a 9,1 or other process prevails
despite the primary orientation of the formal leader, due to stronger influences from other
team members.
We would propose that the nature of the 9,9 leadership style and process is such that
individual team members will have a significant influence on leadership incidents and
therefore on process and culture where a 9,9 leadership process prevails. In the context of
our definition of leadership as the management of leadership culture through the
management of leadership process, the leadership role is more dispersed where a 9,9
process and culture prevails. This should not be confused with empowerment. In fact, it is
Page 30
probably closer to disempowerment since, in the 9,9 model, the power is in the process not
the individuals.
A further point in relation to the role of individual styles in determining overall team
process is that, according to the Grid leadership style model, styles are not static. For
example, even if the formal leader has a dominant 9,1 style, they may be acting in their
backup style from time to time, and this will also influence the ultimate leadership process
experienced in the team. The same could be proposed in relation to the styles of all team
members.
As noted earlier, leadership process and leadership culture are closely related
constructs. Also as noted earlier, it is Schein's view that culture develops around the actions
of and interactions between people engaged in solving problems; the problems and
resolution methodology become abstracted into metaphysical and psychosocial assumptions
and these constitute the culture. Therefore, in the case of our leadership culture model we
propose that the relationship between leadership process and leadership culture is one of
interpretation and abstraction. The leadership culture is the result of interpretation and
abstraction of the leadership process. One implication of this is that although the leadership
culture may be an elusive construct, the leadership process appears to be a worthwhile
surrogate.
Other cultural factors in the organization and non-cultural factors in the organization
or the team are also included as variables in the model which probably influence team
leadership culture. For example, if the formal leader is the head of a department within a
larger organization, what about the influence of broader organization policies, his or her
boss's leadership style and horizontal influences from peers in other departments? All of
these might directly or indirectly affect team leadership culture. As suggested earlier, this is
likely to be a two-way relationship as ripple effects from the team-level leadership culture
influence the leadership culture in other teams.
Page 31
In summary, we have elaborated a model of leadership that integrates individual
leadership style, team-level leadership process and organization culture. We propose that a
specific facet of culture exists that is intimately associated with leadership process. We refer
to this facet of organization culture as the leadership culture, and propose that it has a
significant influence on affective and performance outcomes for the organization. We do
view leadership as management; but as the management of process, not people. Good
leadership becomes the fostering, nurturing and maintaining of an environment where trust,
diversity, excellence and other 9,9 values and 9,9 skills are reinforced, and where leadership
as the management of process is a responsibility of all team members.
DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH
As noted earlier, most of the significant tests of the Grid model focus longitudinally on
Grid OD as a process. None have been supported by a theory that explicitly conceptualizes
Grid as a model of leadership culture although a number include variables which could be
viewed as surrogates or dimensions of leadership process or culture.
The Blake et al. study (1964) which first described the application of Grid OD was a
longitudinal study over 12 months, involving 800 employees exposed to the entire six phase
Grid OD program. Their results support parts of our model. The authors reported major
shifts in dominant values, attitudes and behavior patterns as a result of the program. At what
could probably be considered the team process level, they noted improved union,
community and parent company relationships and problem liveliness in group discussions.
At the outcome level, there was an improvement in performance items such as the quality of
decisions made, cost savings, productivity and profitability. The study has been criticized
mainly on methodological grounds (Blum and Naylor, 1968; Hart, 1974), although any
critique needs to be tempered by the fact that the published results were the outcome of a
post hoc review of the Grid OD project (Blake, 1995). Against this background, we believe
that this seminal study of Grid OD does offer support for our model.
Page 32
Beer and Kleisath (1971) measured a range of team-level process variables along with
satisfaction, commitment and productivity in an organization both before and one year after
an introductory one-week (Phase 1) Grid OD program. They reported significant
improvements in satisfaction and commitment, although changes in productivity were
difficult to identify. The team-level variables were described as "team process dimensions"
and included integration, peer supportiveness of achievement, peer supportiveness of
affiliation and group pressure for conformity. Some of these could be considered measures
of leadership process as defined in the model while others may represent individual value
surrogates. Their group relations and communications scales were probably more indicative
of team-level leadership process. Overall, changes in all but two dimensions were in the
expected direction. However, there was no control group in the study and there were a
number of confounding environmental influences over the period of study. Once again
though, the results lend support to aspects of our model.
Hart (1974) reported on another study of Grid OD in an organization, involving 1,400
managers in Phase 1 Grid OD and 408 personnel in Phase 2 over a period of eight years.
Variables included a 10-item questionnaire measuring "work culture and attitudes" and a
14-item measure of performance outcomes. Hart found significant differences between
those work units exposed to extensive (Phase 2) Grid training and the control group, in
favor of the Grid group. Few significant differences were found between those units
exposed to only introductory level Grid training (Phase 1) and the control group. However,
the study design was effectively cross-sectional rather than longitudinal. The responses
from all employees surveyed were at a specific point in time and compared with
respondents' retrospective assessments of performance 12 months earlier. Once again, a
number of criticisms could be levelled at the study's experimental design, overall research
methodology and construct validity. Despite this, it again offers a measure of support for
our model.
Keller (1978) conducted a longitudinal assessment of the impact of Grid OD training
among 131 employees in an oil refinery and chemical plant. In this study, Grid OD seemed
Page 33
to have no significant effect on what appeared to be relevant variables at the individual
level (leadership style), team process level (organization climate) and outcome level
(satisfaction). Clearly the results of this study do not lend weight to our model. However,
Keller identifies a number of mitigating factors such as the lack of management support for
the program, the lack of follow-up programs and the small percentage of staff who actually
attended the Grid Phase 1 seminar. Importantly, he notes the failure to incorporate the Grid
concepts into performance appraisal and supervisory programs and these would clearly be
critical determinants of leadership incidents and therefore team leadership process and
culture in our model.
The Bernardin and Alvares (1976) study sought to predict leadership effectiveness and
conflict resolution style based on classifications of individuals as intrinsically 9,1, 5,5 or 9,9
in their leadership style. They found that individual Grid leadership style was not a
significant predictor of conflict resolution method. Further, 9,9 leadership style was not
associated with significantly higher leader effectiveness scores than the other two
classifications. However, this study has several limitations, notably relating to construct
validity issues and reliability (Blake & Mouton, 1976). Further, their study focuses
essentially cross-sectionally on individual level variables only and does not address any of
the broader cause-effect relationships proposed in our model.
In endeavoring to rigorously test the model in Figure 3, one is compelled to ask: What
important testable propositions are implied by the model? One set of propositions might
relate to the influence of Grid OD on attitudes, values and beliefs and certain leadership-
related skills and in turn the influence of such changes on individual style dispositions. Two
specific propositions are offered:
Proposition 1. Phase 1 Grid OD training leads to significant changes in
individuals' attitudes and values consistent with the 9,9 leadership style.
Proposition 2. Phase 1 Grid OD training leads to significant changes in
individuals' communication, conflict resolving and critique skills consistent with the
Page 34
9,9 leadership style.
In the above propositions, the changes should probably be considered short term and
not be expected to be enduring without follow-up Grid training such as that entailed in
Phases 2 to 6 of the Grid OD program. Proposition 1 probably already enjoys a measure of
support from the early testing of the Grid model (Beer and Kleisath, 1971; Blake et al.,
1964).
Clearly, propositions could also be developed in support of the proposed relationship
between the attitudinal and skill variables and individual leadership style. It would be
interesting to assess to what extent such variables influence leadership style compared with
more immutable factors such as personality and needs. However, our principal interest here
is in the extent of changes in leadership style associated with any changes in attitudes and
values or skills resulting from Grid OD.
Proposition 3. Changes in individuals' attitudes and values consistent with the
9,9 model lead to an increased prevalence of behavior by the individuals consistent
with the 9,9 leadership style.
Proposition 4. Changes in individuals' communication, conflict resolving and
critique skills consistent with the 9,9 model lead to an increased prevalence of
behavior by the individuals consistent with the 9,9 leadership style.
Other research could focus on the relative influence of the formal leader's leadership
style versus that of subordinates in determining overall leadership culture in a team.
Proposition 5. The formal leader's leadership style will have a stronger influence
on team leadership culture than that of any other team member
Proposition 6. The leadership styles of other team members moderate the effect
of the formal leader's leadership style on team leadership culture; this moderating
influence is most pronounced when a 9,9 leadership culture predominates.
Page 35
Thus far, we have assumed that the five basic leadership styles predicted by the Grid
model and used as the foundation for the existence of five leadership processes and cultures
do actually exist. Indeed, to test propositions 5 and 6 we would propose using the Blake and
Mouton instrument for assessing individual style according to their model. Rather than
return to the 1960s and attempt to verify the prevalence and relevance of five basic Grid
dispositions at the style level, we would assert that the existence and stable prevalence of
the four non-9,9 styles is not critical to the conceptual integrity of the model. Whether
viewed as a style model or a process model, Grid makes one primary prediction and that is
that 9,9 style or process leads to better performance and affective outcomes than other style
or process options. Our model should not stand or fall on whether or not the four other Grid
styles exist as distinct leadership dispositions. Therefore, in order to place less strain on our
model at this stage, we will assume that we are comparing the 9,9 style with all alternative
leadership styles, whatever they may be. However, in order to provide a starting point and a
practical framework for an initial test of our propositions, we would use the Grid model as
the basis for classifying leadership styles.
Even if the five styles do exist it may be that they do not faithfully translate into five
distinct and stable leadership process or culture variants. For simplicity at this stage, we will
assume that leadership process and leadership culture are identical constructs, i.e.,
demonstrating their theoretical distinction contributes little to the overall model
operationally. Again, we would assume that the prevalence, stability and integrity of the 9,9
leadership culture is critical to the model while substantiating the existence of the four Grid
alternatives is less important. However, as with the style propositions, we would start with
process scales including items similar to those in Table 2 that would be designed to detect
all five Grid leadership process and culture options. These scales would need to be refined
and assessed for reliability and unidimensionality. One important aim would be to produce
a scale that reliably and unidimensionally represents 9,9 culture:
Proposition 7. A unidimensional scale with acceptable reliability can be
developed to represent the 9,9 leadership culture.
Page 36
Presumably, other cultures would also be discerned and would possibly reflect the
other four options from the Grid model. Also, if leadership culture is a team-level
phenomenon, then we would expect variation between teams within an organisation.
Proposition 8. Leadership culture options can be found with varying degrees of
prevalence across teams within an organization and across organizations.
This proposition will also tend to control for the possible over-reporting of 9,9
process because of its social desirability.
Finally, we could investigate the impact of the 9,9 leadership culture and the other
leadership culture options on relevant affective and performance variables such as
individual job satisfaction, organizational commitment, team trust and team performance.
Essentially, we are investigating whether 9,9 style and process is indeed the "one best way"
as suggested by Blake and Mouton.
Proposition 9. The 9,9 leadership culture is more strongly associated with
positive levels of job satisfaction, commitment, trust and performance than other
leadership cultures.
One of the challenges in researching such a model is the issue of identifying the
existence and defining the constituency of teams. Another challenge is the potential for
contamination between the scales used to measure the leadership cultures and the affective
outcome variables; as already noted, the 9,9 scale includes items that may be regarded as
socially desirable and thereby correlated to positive affective outcomes for reasons outside
the model. Finally, an interesting question raised by the proposition that leadership is a facet
of culture is: what are the other facets? Although this is beyond the immediate scope of the
model as elaborated, it also clearly warrants investigation in order to provide a firmer
grounding for the leadership culture concept within the overall theory of organization
culture.
Page 37
REFERENCES
Bass, B. M. 1981. Stogdill's handbook of leadership (rev. ed.). New York: The Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. 1990. Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership (3rd ed.). New York: The
Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, T. 1993. Transformational leadership and organizational culture.
Public Administration Quarterly, 17: 112-121.
Beer, M., & Kleisath, S. W. 1971. The effects of the managerial grid lab on organizational
and leadership dimensions. In E. F. Huse, J. L. Bowditch & D. Fisher (Eds.), Readings
on Behavior in Organizations: 335-346. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bell, D. 1976. Power, influence and authority. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bennis, W. G. 1959. Leadership theory and administrative behaviour: The problem of
authority. Administrative Science Quarterly,4: 259-301.
Bernardin, J. H., & Alvares, K. M. 1976. The managerial grid as a predictor of conflict
resolution method and managerial effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21
March: 84-92.
Blake, R. R. 1992. The fruits of professional independence for enriching a career.
Austin: Scientific Methods Inc.
Blake, R. R. 1995. Personal communication. 12 July.
Blake, R. R., & McCanse, A. A. 1991. Leadership dilemmas - grid solutions. Houston:
Gulf Publishing Company.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. 1964. The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. 1976. When Scholarship Fails, Research Falters: A Reply to
Page 38
Bernadin and Alvares. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21 (1), 92-93.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. 1979. OD technology for the future. Training and
Development Journal, November: 54-64.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. 1981a. Increasing productivity through behavioral science.
Personnel, May-June: 59-67.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. 1981b. The new managerial grid (4th ed.) Houston: Gulf
Publishing Company.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. 1981c. Management by grid principles or situationalism:
Which? Group and Organization Studies, 6: 439-455.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. 1982a. A comparative analysis of situationalism and 9,9
management by principle. Organizational Dynamics, 10: 20-43.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. 1982b. Theory and research for developing a science of
leadership. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 18: 275-291.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. 1985. Presidential (Grid) Styles. Training and Development
Journal, March: 30-34.
Blake, R. R., Mouton, J. S., & Barclay, W. 1993. Gridworks. Austin: Scientific Methods
Inc.
Blake, R. R., Mouton, J. S., Barnes, L. B., & Greiner, L. E. 1964. Breakthrough in
organization development. Harvard Business Review, 42: 133-155.
Blum, M. L. and Naylor J. C. 1968. Industrial Psychology: The Theoretical and Social
Foundations. New York: Harper and Row.
Bogardus, E. S. 1934. Leaders and leadership. New York: Appleton-Century.
Brown, A. 1992. Organizational culture: The key to effective leadership and organization
Page 39
development. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 13: 3-6.
Bryman, A. 1986. Leadership and organisations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Burns, J. M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. 1953. Leadership and performance of group functions:
Introduction. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and
theory. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Cattell, R. B. 1951. New concepts for measuring leadership in terms of group syntality.
Human Relations, 4: 161-184.
Filley, A. C., House, R. J., & Kerr, S. 1976. Managerial process and organizational
behavior. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Fleishman E. A. 1957a. A leader behavior description for industry. In R. M. Stogdill & A.
E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus: Ohio
State University, Bureau of Business Research.
Fleishman E. A. 1957b. The leadership opinion questionnaire. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E.
Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus: Ohio
State University, Bureau of Business Research.
Fleishman E. A., & Peters, D. R. 1962. Interpersonal values, leadership attitudes and
managerial success. Personnel Psychology, 15: 127-143.
Foster, W. F. 1989. Toward a critical practice of leadership. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Critical
perspectives on educational leadership: 39-62. London: Falmer.
Freeman, J., & Boeker, W. 1984. The ecological analysis of strategy.
California Management Review, 26: 73-86.
Guyot, J. F. 1978. Management training and post-industrial apologetics. California
Management Review, 10: 84-93.
Page 40
Hart, H. A. 1974. The grid appraised - phases 1 and 2. Personnel, September-October: 45-
59.
Hatch, M. 1993. The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of Management
Review, 18: 657-693.
Henrickson, R. L. 1989. Leadership and culture. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of San Diego.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. 1969. Life cycle theory of leadership. Training and
Development Journal, 23: 26-34.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. 1982a. Grid principles and situationalism: Both! A response
to Blake and Mouton. Group and Organization Studies, 7: 207-10.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. 1982b. Leadership style: Attitudes and behaviours.
Training and Development Journal, 36: 50-52.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D., & Sanders, G. 1990. Measuring organizational
cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 35: 286-316.
Hollander, E. P. 1978. Leadership dynamics. New York: The Free Press.
Ichikawa, A. 1993. Leadership as a form of culture: Its present and future states in Japan.
International Review of Strategic Management, 4: 155-170.
Iles, P. A., & Johnston, T. 1989. Searching for excellence in second-hand clothes?: A note.
Personnel Review, 18: 32-36.
Jacobs, T. O. 1970. Leadership and exchange in formal organizations. Alexandria, VA:
Human Resources Research Organization.
Jensen, A. 1993. Management communication style inventory: Development and
assessment of an instrument to measure management communication style based on
Page 41
the managerial grid theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas.
Kabanoff, B. 1987. Predictive validity of the MODE conflict instrument. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 72: 160-163.
Keller, R. T. 1978. A longitudinal assessment of a managerial grid seminar training
program. Group and Organization Studies, 3: 343-355.
Kracke, W. H. 1978. Force and persuasion: Leadership in an Amazonian society.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kur, C. E. 1981. OD: Perspectives, processes and prospects. Training and Development
Journal, April: 28-34.
Larson, L. L., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. 1976. The great hi-hi leader behavior myth: A
lesson from Occam's razor. Academy of Management Journal, 19: 628-641.
Lester, T. 1991. Taking guard on the grid. Management Today, March: 93-96.
Nystrom, P. C. 1978. Managers and the hi-hi leader myth. Academy of Management
Journal, 21: 325-331.
O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. 1991. People and organizational culture: A
profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of
Management Journal, 34: 487-516.
Pettigrew, A. M. 1979. Onstudying organization cultures. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 24: 570-581.
Rost, J. C. 1991. Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger.
Rotemberg, J. J., & Saloner, G. 1993. Leadership styles and incentives. Management
Science, 39: 1299-1318.
Page 42
Page 43
Schein, E. 1985. Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sheridan, J. E. 1992. Organizational culture and employee retention. Academy of
Management Journal, 35: 1036-1056.
Smith, P. B., & Peterson, M. F. 1989. Leadership, organizations and culture: An event
management model. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Stogdill, R. M. 1974. Handbook of leadership. New York: The Free Press.
The Employee Participation Grid Seminar, Learning Administrator's Guide. 1990.
Austin: Scientific Methods Inc. Van de Vliert, E., & Kabanoff, B. 1990. Toward theory-based measures of conflict management. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 199-209.
