Managerial Grid

The managerial grid model (1964) is a behavioral leadership model developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton. This model originally identified five different leadership styles based on the concern for people and the concern for production. On the grid, concern for production is represented on a one to nine scale on the horizontal axis (x-axis). Concern for people is represented on a one to nine scale on the vertical axis (y-axis).

Understanding the Model
The Managerial Grid is based on two behavioral dimensions:
Concern for People - This is the degree to which a leader considers the needs of team members, their interests, and areas of personal development when deciding how best to accomplish a task
Concern for Production - This is the degree to which a leader emphasizes concrete objectives, organizational efficiency and high productivity when deciding how best to accomplish a task.

Using the axis to plot leadership 'concerns for production' versus 'concerns for people', Blake and Mouton defined the following five leadership styles:

Country Club Leadership– (High concern for People/Low concern for Production)
This style has a high concern for people and a low concern for production. Managers using this style pay much attention to the security and comfort of the employees, in hopes that this would increase performance. The resulting atmosphere is usually friendly, but not necessarily productive.

Produce or Perish Leadership– (High concern for Production/Low concern for People)
With a high concern for production, and a low concern for people, managers using this style find employee needs unimportant; they provide their employees with money and expect performance back. Managers using this style also pressure their employees through rules and punishments to achieve the company goals. This style is based on Theory X, and is commonly applied by companies on the edge of failure.

Impoverished Leadership – (Low concern for Production/ Low concern for People)
In this style, managers have low concern for both people and production. Managers use this style to avoid getting into trouble. The main concern for the manager is not to be held responsible for any mistakes, which results in less innovative decisions.

Middle-of-the-Road Leadership– (Medium concern for Production/Medium concern for People)
This style seems to be a balance of the two competing concerns. It may at first appear to be an ideal compromise. Therein lies the problem, though: When you compromise, you necessarily give away a bit of each concern so that neither production nor people needs are fully met. Leaders who use this style settle for average performance and often believe that this is the most anyone can expect.

Team Leadership – (High concern for Production/High concern for People)
According to the Blake Mouton model, this is the pinnacle of managerial style. These leaders stress production needs and the needs of the people equally highly. The premise here is that employees are involved in understanding organizational purpose and determining production needs. When employees are committed to, and have a stake in the organization's success, their needs and production needs coincide. This creates a team environment based on trust and respect, which leads to high satisfaction and motivation .

It is important to recognize that the Team Leadership style isn't always the most effective approach in every situation. While the benefits of democratic and participative management are universally accepted, there are times that call for more attention in one area than another. If your company is in the midst of a merger or some other significant change, it is often acceptable to place a higher emphasis on people than on production. Likewise, when faced with an economic hardship or physical risk, people concerns may be placed on the back burner, for the short-term at least, to achieve high productivity and efficiency.

What is Sexual Harassment in the Workplace?

It is behavior that is bothersome, irritating, demeaning, and annoying. Sexual harassment is harassment of a sexual nature. But it can be more! It is against the law! It can lead to substantial and embarrassing court fines and significant payments to an injured party. It can mean reduced productivity. It can be measured in lower stock value. It can be a hostile work environment. It is wrong.
Sexual harassment is basically defined as unwelcome sexual conduct that is servere or pervasive and that creates a hostile or abusive work environment. There are two types of sexual harassment claims. The most common in recent years has been hostile environment sexual harassment. This type of harassment is usually motivated by an animus toward women or sexual desire, and takes the form of sexual advances, jokes, comments or actions that alter the work environment. The second type of sexual harassment is called quid pro quo (”this for that”) sexual harassment. Quid pro quo sexual harassment most often occurs where a supervisor or manager threatens some adverse employment action absent relenting to sexual demands or offers employment benefits in exchange for sexual favors.
Landmark Supreme Court judgment on Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place
In the Landmark case of Vishaka and others versus State of Rajasthan (AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3011), The Supreme Court has issued extensive guidelines to ensure prevention of sexual harassment of women at their work place. These directions were issued in a writ petition arising out of an incident of alleged brutal gang rape of a social worker in a village of Rajasthan.
This petition was filed for the enforcement of fundamental rights of working women under article 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of India in view of the prevailing climate in which the violation of these rights is not uncommon. With the increasing awareness and emphasis on gender justice, there is an increase in the effort to guard against such social violations; and the resentment towards incidents of sexual harassment is also increasing.
This petition was in Sexual Harassment in the Workplace and was brought as a class action by certain social activits and NGOs.
It has been held by the Supreme Court that it shall be the duty of the employer to prevent the commission of sexual harassment and to provide the procedures for the resolution and prosecution of acts of sexual harassment by taking all the steps required.Sexual harassment has been described as including such unwelcome sexually determined behaviour (whether directly or by implication) as:
(a) physical contact and advances;
(b) a demand or request for sexual favours;
(c) sexually coloured remarks;
(d) showing pornography;
(e) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature.

It has been held that all employers should take appropriate step to prevent sexual harassment: (a) The prohibition of sexual harassment should be notified published and circulated in appropriate ways. (b) The rules/regulation of government of public sector bodies should included rules prohibiting sexual harassment and provide for appropriate penalties. (c) As regard private employees steps should be taken to include the prohibition in this standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
The employer has been directed to initiate criminal action by making a complaint in cases where specific offence of sexual harassment has taken place. He is also required to initiate disciplinary action. The above guidelines are in addition to rights available to women under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.