University of Michigan Leadership Studies: Employee vs Production Orientation

By Tara Minh · Updated Oct 10, 2026

The University of Michigan leadership studies were mid-20th-century research from the university's Survey Research Center. They compared how supervisors of high- and low-producing groups behaved, and described two orientations: employee-oriented supervisors, who focus on people and their needs, and production-oriented supervisors, who focus on the technical side of the job and the output. Rensis Likert later built on this work with his System 1 to System 4 model.

If you manage people, the useful part is the contrast. It asks whether you treat your team mainly as human beings with needs, or mainly as a way to get work done. Most of us do both, and the studies are a good excuse to check the balance. This guide covers where the research came from, what the two orientations look like, how Likert extended them, how they compare with Ohio State, Blake-Mouton and Lewin, and how to apply them on your own team.

What are the University of Michigan leadership studies?

The Michigan studies were a set of field investigations into supervision, run at the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center and Institute for Social Research. They are one of the two classic programs of behavioral leadership theory, the school of thought that studies what leaders do instead of what leaders are born with. The other is the Ohio State program, which we cover in our guide to the Ohio State leadership studies.

The research asked a practical question: which supervisory practices go with higher productivity and higher morale? Researchers answered it by interviewing supervisors and employees and comparing groups that produced a lot with groups that produced less. A university summary of the program says it sought the principles and methods of leadership that led to productivity and job satisfaction, and that the work was directed by Rensis Likert (Tallinn University summary).

Key Facts

Key Facts

• Rensis Likert directed the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan from 1946 to 1948 and was the first director of the Institute for Social Research (Roper Center, Cornell).
• The studies described two leader orientations: employee orientation (workers seen as people with personal needs) and production orientation (workers seen mainly as a means of getting the work done) (Tallinn University summary).
• A widely used organizational behavior text says the two Michigan behaviors, job-centered and member-centered, correspond closely to Ohio State's initiating structure and consideration (OpenStax, Organizational Behavior).
• The summarized conclusion: an employee orientation combined with general rather than close supervision produced better results (Tallinn University summary).
• Likert's management systems run from System 1 (exploitative authoritative) to System 4 (participative), and he held that the closer an organization is to System 4, the more satisfied and productive its people will be (Businessballs).

Where the studies came from

The program grew out of the Survey Research Center, which Likert directed in its early years and which, under his leadership, grew into the country's largest university-based social science research organization (Roper Center, Cornell). Likert had a background in applied organizational research, including work as research director of the Life Insurance Agency Management Association from 1935 to 1939 (same source).

The published record is a series of monographs from the Institute for Social Research. One is Productivity, Supervision and Morale in an Office Situation by Daniel Katz, Nathan Maccoby and Nancy C. Morse, published by the Institute in 1950 (Google Books record). Another is Katz's Productivity, Supervision and Morale Among Railroad Workers, published by the Survey Research Center in 1951 (Internet Archive record). The titles tell you what the researchers cared about: three outcomes (productivity, supervision, morale) in real workplaces, not in a lab.

That setting matters. These weren't abstract "leaders." They were first-line supervisors with real crews, and the researchers asked how the supervisors of the best-performing groups differed from the rest.

The two orientations

The studies landed on two ways a supervisor can orient toward the job.

Employee orientation

Employee-oriented supervisors stress the human relations side of the work. In the Tallinn University summary's wording, they show genuine concern for interpersonal relations and view workers as human beings with personal needs (Tallinn University summary). OpenStax describes the member-centered behaviors in the same family as consideration and support for members (OpenStax).

In practice, that looks like:

• Taking an interest in each person's situation and development
• Explaining decisions instead of just announcing them
• Letting people shape how their own work gets done
• Treating a mistake as something to understand, not something to punish

Production orientation

Production-oriented supervisors stress the technical and production aspects of the job and see employees as the means of getting the work done (same Tallinn source). OpenStax describes the job-centered behaviors as supervisory functions such as planning, scheduling and coordinating work (OpenStax).

In practice, that looks like:

• Setting targets and watching output closely
• Specifying exactly how the task should be done
• Checking work frequently
• Treating deadlines and numbers as the main measure of a good week

Production orientation isn't a villain. Somebody has to plan and schedule. The studies' point was about emphasis and about how closely a supervisor watches people while doing it.

Close versus general supervision

Alongside orientation, the summary highlights a second variable: the way supervision is delivered. Close supervision means frequent checking and detailed direction. General supervision means setting the goal and leaving the method to the person. The reported conclusion pairs the two: an employee orientation combined with general rather than close supervision led to better results (Tallinn University summary).

Are they opposites? The one-dimension question

Early accounts of the Michigan work treated employee and production orientation as two ends of a single scale, so a supervisor was one or the other. That's not how the later literature reads it. OpenStax notes that, as at Ohio State, Michigan leaders can show any combination of the two behaviors (OpenStax).

So you can be strong on both, weak on both, or lopsided. The practical test isn't "which one am I?" but "is either dial turned so low that it hurts?"

Extension: four behaviors that make leadership effective

OpenStax reports that later Michigan-based and related research identified four more behaviors linked to effective leadership: support, work facilitation, goal emphasis and interaction facilitation. Support and interaction facilitation serve the group's maintenance needs. Goal emphasis and work facilitation serve its task needs (OpenStax).

The same source adds an idea that's easy to miss: the leader doesn't have to personally supply all four. Its summary is that the leader's real job is to set the tone and create the climate in which these behaviors are present. That's a useful reframe for managers who feel they must be the only source of support, structure and goals.

Likert's four systems

Likert took the Michigan findings and scaled them from the supervisor up to the whole organization. His management systems run along a continuum. Businessballs summarizes them as follows (Businessballs):

Likert's claim was that the closer an organization sits to System 4, the more satisfied and productive its people will be (same source). A university summary notes that he favored System 4 as the approach with the most positive outcomes (Tallinn University summary).

Notice what moved. The Michigan studies described how a supervisor behaves. Likert's systems describe how an entire organization runs, from how decisions get made to how information travels. System 4 is close in spirit to participative leadership, and it echoes the people-first thinking in human relations theory.

How Michigan compares with related frameworks

The Michigan studies sit in a family of models. Here's how they line up.

A quick way to remember it: Lewin asks who makes the decision, Michigan asks where the leader puts attention, Ohio State asks which two behaviors the leader shows, Blake-Mouton tells you where to aim, and Likert tells you how the whole system should work.

Michigan and Ohio State landed in similar places independently. OpenStax notes that the similar findings of two independent research groups added to their credibility (OpenStax).

How to apply the Michigan model

You don't need the original instruments. Here's a sequence you can run in a few weeks.

1. Write down what you actually did. List five specific things you did last week that were production-focused (set a deadline, checked output) and five that were employee-focused (asked about a workload, explained a decision).
2. Rate your supervision style. For each team member, ask: do I set the goal and leave the method to them (general), or do I specify and check the method (close)?
3. Ask the team. Three to five direct reports can rate you anonymously on the checklist below. Self-ratings tend to flatter.
4. Compare the two views. The gap between how you see yourself and how they see you is usually the most useful finding.
5. Match supervision to the person. A new hire may need closer supervision for a while. An experienced specialist usually doesn't. Move toward general supervision as competence grows.
6. Change two behaviors. One that shows more interest in people and one that gives more control over method.
7. Re-check in four to six weeks. Same questions, same people.

Template: supervisor orientation checklist

Rate each statement from 1 (rarely) to 5 (almost always). Self-score first, then ask team members to rate you. These items are written for this guide and aren't taken from any published instrument.

Scoring. Add items 1 to 5 for an employee total and items 6 to 10 for a production total (each 5 to 25). A big gap between the two totals means one dial is neglected. A big gap between self and team scores means your intent isn't what people experience. This is a conversation tool, not a validated instrument.

Examples by business function

These scenarios are hypothetical, written to show how the two orientations play out.

Sales. A sales manager who is heavily production-oriented reviews every call recording and sets daily activity quotas. Numbers may hold for a quarter, but experienced reps start to feel watched. Shifting toward general supervision could mean agreeing on the pipeline goal and letting senior reps choose their own approach, while coaching new hires more closely.

Engineering. A team lead sets the sprint goal and lets engineers decide how to build. That's general supervision. The same lead asks about workload and protects focus time, which is an employee-oriented habit. The risk is the opposite one: so little production focus that deadlines drift.

Customer support. Work here is repetitive and measurable, so production orientation comes naturally: response-time targets, queue monitoring. An employee-oriented supervisor adds check-ins after hard tickets and notices who carries the difficult cases.

Operations and manufacturing. Safety procedures call for strong production focus and some close supervision. A supervisor who also listens to line workers about equipment problems tends to hear about trouble sooner.

Do's and don'ts

Limits of the Michigan studies

The Michigan work was influential, but it has gaps you should know about.

• It describes behavior, not situations. The studies compared supervisors and groups, and say little about how the best style shifts with context. That gap is what contingency models later tried to fill, such as path-goal theory.
• Correlation isn't direction. A comparison of high- and low-producing groups can't by itself show whether an employee-oriented style helps a group produce, or whether a group that's already doing well makes it easier for a supervisor to be relaxed and supportive. Keep that in mind before promising a productivity gain.
• The setting is dated. The early fieldwork covered office and railroad settings in the mid-20th century. Modern remote and project-based work looks different, so treat the findings as a prompt for reflection, not a rule.
• System 4 is a belief about the ideal. Likert's claim that participative organizations are more productive is a position, not a settled law, and an approach that suits a stable organization may not suit a crisis.

None of this makes the framework obsolete. It makes it a lens. It gives you a clean way to ask a hard question about your own habits.

Putting it into practice

Pick one direct report this week. Ask yourself two things: have I made the goal clear, and have I left them room to decide how? If the answer to the first is no, add structure. If the second is no, back off. Then ask them, plainly, which one they'd like more of.

That conversation does what the studies did at scale: it connects how a supervisor behaves to how people work. If you want to see where the idea went next, read about implicit leadership theory, which asks how followers' own expectations shape what they see in a leader.