This paper analyzes two leadership case studies—one featuring Mark Young, a painting department head who evolves from autocratic to democratic leadership, and Susan Parks, an equipment store manager operating under rigid autocratic control. Through comparative analysis using Blake and Mouton's leadership grid, the paper examines the advantages and disadvantages of each approach and applies self-assessment findings to recommend specific interventions for improving relationship-oriented leadership skills in contemporary workplaces.
Mark Young is a professional painter who transitions into a leadership role as head of the painting department in a large health facility. Initially, Mark operates as a task-oriented leader, prioritizing goal attainment over the personal and professional needs of his employees. Over time, however, his approach evolves significantly. He begins to interact more with his subordinates on both professional and personal levels, takes an active interest in their professional development, and delegates duties to create opportunities for skill advancement. The department's performance has improved substantially under his tenure, with much of this improvement attributable to his shift toward a more interactive leadership style.
Based on this case, Mark exhibits characteristics of a democratic leader. Although he maintains control and final decision-making authority, he actively invites contributions, values the views and opinions of subordinates, and through delegation, provides ample opportunities for employees to demonstrate their skills and creativity (Daft, 2014). The team outings Mark organizes serve dual purposes: to obtain firsthand information about employee needs, preferences for departmental operations, and honest opinions on key decisions; and to build and maintain positive leader-follower relationships.
However, Mark's journey is not one of consistently democratic leadership. His style evolves from an autocratic foundation—based on giving orders and disregarding subordinate input—to a people-oriented approach that leverages human potential rather than hierarchical power to drive success. In this sense, Mark is fundamentally a relationship-oriented leader who addresses employee needs both within and outside the workplace to foster healthy interpersonal relationships. His strategy centers on creating a satisfied and motivated workforce whose positive attitude drives organizational success. He deliberately builds not only strong relationships between himself and employees but also among employees themselves, which explains his commitment to group outings. Importantly, Mark does not sacrifice performance for relationship maintenance; the department's 92% customer satisfaction rating demonstrates this balance. On the Blake and Mouton leadership grid, Mark scores (9, 9)—a team manager who emphasizes both strong interpersonal relationships and exceptional performance.
Susan Parks manages an equipment store specializing in running shoes and sporting accessories. Her employees describe her as a no-nonsense manager obsessed with maintaining organizational growth and reputation. Most employees perceive her as unavailable for interaction, unwilling to listen to their concerns or perspectives, and so focused on task completion that she has no capacity for understanding subordinate expectations or opinions. Her reputation includes the telling detail that she often eats lunch standing up, symbolic of her single-minded devotion to work at the expense of personal life and employee relations. Her life revolves around task completion, customer needs, and family—employees do not feature prominently in her priorities. Nevertheless, some employees admire her leadership for creating the perception of clear direction and efficient, organized operations under her control.
Susan represents an autocratic, task-oriented leader focused on achieving results through power and dictatorial tactics (Daft, 2014). She sees no value in involving subordinates in decision-making and shows no commitment to professional development. In her view, employees exist to receive and execute orders; organizational progress depends on subordinates respecting boundaries and authority. This command-and-control approach, while historically common, creates significant challenges in contemporary labor markets.
Susan's management style has generated profound negative reactions from her workforce. Contemporary companies increasingly use employee incentives, benefits, and decision-making participation to attract and retain talent. Given that competing companies in Susan's industry offer these engagement opportunities, her employees naturally expect similar treatment. This gap between their expectations and her delivery creates dissatisfaction and flight risk.
To retain employees and avoid costly turnover that would undermine her carefully maintained profits, Susan must evolve her leadership style in response to changing labor force dynamics. Her workforce consists largely of college students who are particularly susceptible to peer pressure and who expect greater understanding and autonomy from their employer. These employees believe their qualifications and theoretical knowledge make them capable of independent action rather than directive management. Adopting a more embracing, interactive leadership approach would increase her overall effectiveness; employees would experience greater job satisfaction from feeling valued and appreciated (Daft, 2014).
A leadership questionnaire revealed personal task and relationship scores of 43 and 38, respectively. These results align with peer perceptions of being a "workaholic with no social life." The scores suggest that in a leadership position, the focus would be on task execution and individual accountability rather than on building interpersonal relationships and cultivating positive attitudes that drive results. On the Blake and Mouton leadership grid, this translates to a (5, 5) score—a middle-of-the-road manager placing moderate emphasis on both results and people. However, in today's competitive marketplace, moderate performance in either dimension is inadequate. Both task and relationship skills require development to achieve true leadership effectiveness.
Democratic leadership, as exhibited by Mark, offers significant advantages including building strong work ethic, fostering commonality and solidarity among employees and leaders, supporting business alignment, and encouraging innovation. However, it carries risks: decision-making can be time-consuming, and subordinates may become so comfortable with their leader that they lose respect or begin to relax performance standards in the belief the leader will overlook shortcomings to preserve relationships.
To prevent these pitfalls, Mark should clearly distinguish between urgent decisions that cannot await consultation and less-time-sensitive decisions suitable for collaborative input. He must establish and maintain professional boundaries that employees observe in their daily work. This approach ensures smooth operations; employees who feel included in appropriate decisions will accept exclusion from urgent matters without resentment. When boundaries exist and performance expectations are clear, individual and organizational performance remains strong despite the collaborative approach.
Susan must transition from her current autocratic style to a more democratic, people-oriented approach or face mounting costs from employee turnover and reputational damage. Specific strategies include emphasizing employee development through training and professional development opportunities. She should increase interaction through regular in-house forums, conferences, or store meetings where employees present concerns and receive responses. Small gestures—such as joining subordinates for breaks—would signal meaningful change in perceptions of her as self-centered and antisocial. Finally, she should research engagement practices at competing companies and implement comparable strategies to keep employees motivated and remain aligned with labor market trends.
"Personal commitment to enhance communication and emotional intelligence"
You’re 87% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.