Are Relationships or Tasks More Important at Work?

Imagine two professionals on the same team. Both are smart. Both care about doing good work.

The first is highly competent. Their work is accurate, efficient, and technically strong. They meet expectations consistently, but spend little time building relationships beyond what is required to get tasks done.

The second is also competent. Not exceptional at everything, but solid and reliable. In addition to doing the work, this individual invests time in relationships. They prioritize connection before content, listen carefully, and adapt their communication based on what the situation requires.

If you had to choose, which person would you expect to be more successful at work?

When I ask this question in class or during workshops, most groups arrive at the same conclusion: competence is necessary, but it is rarely sufficient.

Competence and relationships solve different problems

Think of competence as a baseline requirement. Competence signals that you can be relied on with the work. Without it, nothing else matters. In that sense, competence functions as a proxy for task capability.

Relationships solve a different problem. They influence whether competence is noticed, understood, and relied upon. Over time, that affects who brings you into important conversations, how much confidence others place in your judgment, and whether you ideas influence decisions.

This distinction is well established across leadership and organizational behavior research. Models like the Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid separate concern for task and concern for people because each contributes to effectiveness in different ways.

Task competence contributes to accuracy and quality. Relational investment contributes to access and influence. When one is present without the other, effectiveness is constrained.

Advancement often depends on the combination

A common story in organizations is that effectiveness comes from being the most technically capable person. In practice, effectiveness often depends on meeting a threshold of competence and then investing intentionally in relationships.

That does not mean relationships replace performance. Relational investment amplifies performance by making it more likely to be used and acted on.

Leader–Member Exchange Theory helps explain how trust and influence develop through repeated interactions that combine reliability with interpersonal awareness, often embedded in everyday task work.

Following through, explaining your reasoning, adjusting how you communicate based on the audience, and acknowledging others’ perspectives are all situations where task and relationship intersect.

The real skill is knowing what to emphasize right now

No fixed formula determines how much attention to give tasks versus relationships. The balance changes with context, including urgency, uncertainty, and the people involved.

Situational Leadership Theory suggests that effectiveness depends on reading the moment, not on following a static rule tied to role or seniority. 

A helpful question to revisit regularly is this:

What combination of competence and relationship does this situation require right now?

Sometimes the answer leans heavily toward execution. Other times it calls for slowing down, checking expectations, or investing in trust before moving forward.

Holding both, rather than choosing between them

Most professionals struggle because time and attention are limited, and the tension between getting work done and building relationships never fully disappears.

Competence gets you in the game. Relationships often determine what happens next.

Learning to develop both, and to adjust your emphasis based on the situation, is one of the most durable skills you can build at any stage of your career.

__________

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid: The key to leadership excellence. Gulf Publishing.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2013). Management of organizational behavior. Pearson.