The Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid, explained
As you consider how you can develop as a manager, you might find the Blake Mouton Managerial Grid a really helpful framework.
Developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in the 1960s, this simple grid illustrates different management styles based on a leader's concern for people and concern for results. But before we take a look, lets look at the thinking it replaced.
Busting the myth: being nice vs. being effective
Too often, managers fall into the trap of thinking they have to choose between ‘being nice’ and ‘getting results’. They assume that to get things done, they need to be tough and uncompromising, or that to have good relationships, they need to go easy on people.
So as a manager, you might feel like the right thing to do is to adopt the Goldilocks strategy: aiming for somewhere ‘in the middle.’
But Blake and Mouton’s grid shows us a different way.
They argue there doesn't have to be a trade-off between being caring toward your team and driving high performance. In fact, the model suggests that the most effective leaders are able to do both at once - they create an environment where people feel valued and motivated while also setting high standards and pushing for excellent results. Let’s take a look at their managerial grid, and you’ll see what we mean.
Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid diagram
Instead of a linear nice-to-driven continuum, Blake-Mouton presents the two variables as independent axes of a grid. While the extremes of ‘accommodating’ and ‘dictatorial’ still exist, as well as the ‘status quo’ compromise position, it’s possible to jump off the line altogether, to develop to develop a truly Sound approach to management – concerned with both people and results.
Let’s look at five key points on the managerial grid, one by one.
The indifferent style
Low concern for people
Low concern for production
Also called impoverished management, leaders in this category are going through the motions. They don't put much effort into meeting the needs of their team or achieving strong results. There is minimal communication and engagement. This apathetic style leads to disorganization, dissatisfaction and ineffectiveness. (This quadrant can also be driven by fear or a lack of confindence: a manager that doesn’t want to do anything too nice in case they look weak, and doesn’t want to push for outcomes in case it makes people dislike them.)
The dictatorial style
Low concern for people
High concern for production
Also known as produce-or-perish or authoritarian management, this approach is what most people picture when they think of a hard-charging, results-at-all-costs leader. There is heavy emphasis on tasks, schedules, and outputs, but little to no concern for employee well-being. While it may spike performance in the short-term, this style can generate hostility, resistance and high turnover.
The accommodating style
High concern for people
Low concern for production
Also termed country club management, this style represents the other extreme - a leader who is so focused on being well-liked and making people happy that they don't set appropriate expectations or push for performance. The work environment may be relaxed and friendly, but productivity suffers due to lack of direction and accountability. Mediocrity becomes acceptable.
Status quo style
Moderate concern for people
Moderate concern for production
Managers who adopt a status quo (previously middle-of-the-road) approach strive for balance but may end up sacrificing both people's needs and production to maintain harmony. This might look like a leader who avoids conflict and makes compromises, leading to mediocre outcomes that satisfy neither the team's nor the organization's aspirations fully.
Sound style
High concern for people
High concern for production
Also referred to as team management, this is presented as the ideal in the Blake Mouton model. Sound managers engage their people, building trust, respect and commitment. At the same time, they clarify goals, roles and standards. They resolve conflicts constructively and make sure the team has what it needs to succeed. With this approach, people feel motivated to do their best work.
Nuances and alternatives
While the Blake Mouton grid provides a useful starting point, management is complex, and it's important to recognize a few caveats:
The model presents the five styles as distinct quadrants, but in reality, there is a continuum between them. Many managers fall somewhere in between the extremes.
The ideal "sound" style will look different in different contexts. Factors like the type of work, the employee's skills and motivations, and the external environment all influence what effective leadership looks like.
Other frameworks, like Situational Leadership Theory, suggest that truly savvy managers adapt their approach based on the specific employee and task at hand rather than having one go-to style. Likewise, Daniel Goleman's six leadership styles demonstrate how the best managers flex between approaches as needed.
Nonetheless, the core premise of the Blake Mouton grid - that caring for people and driving for results can and should go hand in hand - is a valuable one to reflect on. Exceptional managers bring out the best in their teams by combining compassion with accountability. As you chart your own leadership journey, consider how you can develop both of these critical leadership muscles.
Tips on becoming a ‘both/and’ manager
If you're like many managers, you may still struggle with how to actually practice this "both/and" approach, especially in tricky situations. And that’s not surprising – it’s a skill you have to develop over time, and requires some creative thinking rather than simply ‘splitting the difference’ in difficult situations.
Let's dive deeper into the mindset and tactics that can help you care for your people while also driving excellent results.
Cultivate a win-win mindset. The first step is to challenge the assumption that you have to choose between your people's needs and the organization's needs. Instead, adopt the belief that what's good for your employees and what's good for the business can and should be aligned. When you're faced with a decision, ask yourself: "How can I approach this in a way that's fair and supportive to my team member AND moves us toward our goals? What solution would enable this person to feel respected and valued AND uphold our standards of excellence?"
Couple empathy with clear expectations. If someone is unhappy, listen openly to understand their perspective and show genuine concern for their well-being. What's causing their dissatisfaction? What do they need to feel more fulfilled and successful in their role? At the same time, reiterate the objectives and metrics they're accountable for. Clarify any non-negotiable standards of performance and behavior. Work with them to develop a plan that addresses their concerns AND aligns with team/company goals.
Regularly communicate both your belief in your people and your high expectations. Celebrate successes and learning opportunities.
Create forums for open dialogue about both personal and professional topics. Do 1-on-1s, team meetings, and office hours.
Model self-care and boundaries. If you're burnt out and frazzled, it's hard to extend compassion. Take care of your own wellbeing so you have the emotional capacity to be present for others.
Proactively look for ways to develop your people that also move the needle for the organization. Connect their goals and growth to key priorities.
Hold yourself accountable for results AND relationships. Track your team's engagement and satisfaction, not just performance KPIs.
Related concepts
In our leadership styles training course, we also help managers take a ‘situational leadership’ approach, where they adjust their approach depending on how confident and competent each team member is
The social styles framework (a general personality matrix, not manager-specific) implies ‘people focus’ and ‘task focus’ as opposite ends of the same spectrum, whereas this grid takes the view that the best managers can (and should!) be focused on both at once
Likewise, the foundation of ‘radical candour’ is that you don’t need to choose between being nice and being honest – the concept ‘why not both?’ emerges again!
