Situational Leadership, one of the most widely used leadership approaches in the business world today was developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard in 1969. It is a leadership approach that focuses on leadership in different situations and is based on the premise that different situations demand different kinds of leadership. This approach stresses that a leader has to adapt his style of leadership according to the situation of his group. There are four different leadership styles based on Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Model. Although scholars have questioned this style of leadership due to lack of research and obvious biases in initial studies, situational leadership style is regarded as one of the most successful styles due to the adaptive style leaders must display according to the situation and the group or organization’s ability and willingness to perform the task at hand.
Situational Leadership Situational Leadership is a leadership theory based on the idea that leaders are most effective when they alter their leadership approach to fit the needs of individual employees as opposed to his own leadership style. This leadership approach is regarded as one of the most effective styles of leadership and is becoming more prevalent in businesses today, due to the more diverse workforces (Kokemuller, 2011). This approach offers four different styles of leadership, which allows the leader to assess each employee’s strengths and weaknesses then determine the best course of action for the task at hand.
“These leadership styles are: the directing approach, the coaching approach, the supporting approach, and the delegating approach” (Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Zigarmi; 1985). Given the fact that each employee works differently and require a different type of attention from his or her leader makes this approach more feasible. However, like all other leadership approaches, there are pros and cons to the situational approach.
According to The Situational Leadership Model devised by Ken Blanchard and Paul Hersey (1969), there is no “one size fits all” approach to leadership. Blanchard and Hersey suggested that depending on the situation, varying levels of “leadership” and “management” are necessary. However, leaders must identify the most important tasks, and then consider the readiness level of their followers by analyzing the group’s ability and willingness. Depending on the level of these variables, leaders must apply the most appropriate leadership style to fit the given situation (Blanchard, 1985). According to Neil Kokemuller (2011), “other variables include: effort from subordinates; skilled employees that understand their roles; an organized work environment; unity in the workplace; availability of resources; and necessary support along with coordination and collaboration with other work groups. The availability of all these variables makes an effective setting for Situational Leadership.”
When the employees lack the appropriate skills and are not highly motivated to perform the task at hand, the leader should use the Directing Approach. This approach requires the leader to define the task at hand in detail as well as define the roles of the employees. In the directing approach, communication is basically one-way. The leader makes all the decisions, closely supervise the employees and sustain a commanding position to ensure the task is completed in an efficient and effective manner.
The next style of leadership under The Situational Leadership Model is the Coaching Approach. This approach is suitable when the followers’ skill set is inadequate to perform the task at hand but they are extremely interested in learning the task and getting the job done. Like the Directing Approach, this approach still requires the leader to define the employees’ roles and the tasks at hand in detail, but the employees are allowed to make suggestions and present their ideas. The leader will maintain control and ultimately make the decisions, but he communicates with the followers and gives them support and acknowledge their efforts to build their morale. With this approach the leader is able to train the followers and help them develop the skills necessary to complete the task alone in the future (Fernandez & Vecchio, 1997; Yukl, 1998).
In a situation in which the employees are highly skilled at the task at hand but are not committed to the project, the Supporting Approach is more appropriate. This approach requires that the leader persuade the employees to buy in or commit to what he is trying to accomplish. The leader accomplishes this goal by praising the employees and making them feel a sense of belonging when they display commitment to the success of the task.
The Delegating Approach is probably the most ideal approach under Situational Leadership. Under this approach the leader have workers that are highly skilled and are very willing to perform. The leader in this situation trusts that his workers will perform with little to no supervision. They possess the skills to do the job and are committed to doing their very best to complete the task at hand. In this approach, even though the leader is involved in the decision making, the worker is in charge of execution and has the most control and is responsible for reporting information up to the leader.
Situational Leadership has several strengths. The first strength is its longevity in the business world. This leadership approach is often used to train organizational leaders to become more efficient and effective. Hersey and Blanchard (1993) reported that it has been a factor in training programs of more than 400 of the Fortune 500 companies.
The second advantage is that it is easy to use, simple to understand, and easily applied in a variety of settings. Situational leadership provides an uncomplicated approach that is easy to use. The ideas behind this approach quickly acquired and the principles recommended by this approach can be applied in a work, school, or family setting.
The third advantage of the situational approach is that it explains what should be done and what should not be done in certain situations. For example, if your subordinates have an inadequate skill set for the task at hand but are highly motivated to perform the task, this approach suggests the leader take the coaching style approach by encouraging and soliciting the input of the subordinates. On the other hand, if your subordinates are highly skilled and willing to take on the task, this approach suggests that the leader use the delegating style which allows the subordinates to take charge of the project while the leader refrains from intervening.
A fourth strength of Situational Leadership is that it emphasizes leader flexibility (Graef, 1983; Yukl, 1989). Situational Leadership stresses the importance of leaders adapting their style of leadership according to the needs of their subordinates. Effective leaders can change their own style of leadership based on their subordinates’ needs and the requirements of the task, at any point during the project. Hence, the leader must be willing change his style to meet the requirements of the situation.
Finally, Situational Leadership reminds us to treat each subordinate differently based on the task at hand and to seek opportunities to help subordinates learn new skills and become more confident in their work (Fernandez and Vecchio, 1997; Yukl, 1998). This leadership approach will allow leaders to customize strategies and solutions based on their subordinates individual strengths and weaknesses. Situational Leadership has its limitations despite its extensive use in leadership training and development. The first weakness of situational leadership is that there are limited research studies to validate assumptions set forth by this approach.
The lack of a strong body of research on situational leadership raises questions about the theoretical basis of the approach (Fernandez & Vecchio, 1997; Graeff, 1997; Vecchio & Boatwright, 2002; Vecchio, Bullis, & Brazil, 2006). A second weakness is the vague conceptualization in the model of subordinates’ developments. The authors of the model do not make clear how commitment is combined with competence to form four distinct levels of development (Graeff, 1997; Yukl, 1989). Another criticism deals with how the model matches leader style with subordinate development levels—the prescriptions of the model. Vecchio (1987) conducted a study of 300 high school teachers and their principals to determine the validity of the prescriptions suggested by the Hersey and Blanchard approach.
Vecchio and his colleagues replicated this study in 1997, using university employees (Fernandez & Vecchio, 1997), and again in 2006, studying more than 800 U.S. Military Academy cadets (Vecchio et al., 2006). Neither study found strong evidence to support the basic prescriptions suggested in the situational leadership model. In addition, the model does not account for how certain demographic characteristics such as education, age, experience, and gender, affects the leader-subordinate prescriptions of the model (Fernandez & Vecchio, 1997; Vecchio et al., 2006). The final weakness of situational leadership is directed toward towards the leadership questionnaires that accompany the model. According to Graeff (1983) and Yukl (1989), the best answers available to respondents have been predetermined and are therefore biased in favor of situational leadership.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Situational Leadership approach allows leaders to assess the situation and the subordinates ability and willingness to perform the task before applying a style of leadership. This approach gives the leader the opportunity to identify the needs of their subordinates and customize their leadership style according to their individual subordinates needs. As a result of this leadership approach, the leader-subordinate relationship is strengthened and both parties as well as the organization will benefit.
