This week we learned about leadership styles including directive behaviors and supportive behaviors as well as developmental levels of followers. Although the concepts of leadership style to developmental level may be well understood and practiced, I’m led to believe a lot of leaders who may not have taken any leadership courses will not understand this one to one relationship. The leadership styles consist of the behavior pattern of a person who attempts to influence others (Northouse, 2016). These behaviors patterns are classified into four categories
- S1 – High directive – Low supportive
- S2 – High directive – high supportive
- S3 – High supportive – Low directive
- S4 – Low supportive – low directive.
Based on the idea that followers move forward and backward along a developmental continuum (Northouse, 2016) Its imperative that leaders adapt their leadership style to match that of the development level. These developmental levels consist of
- D1 – Low competence – high commitment
- D2 – Low to come competence – low commitments
- D3 – Moderate to high competence – variable commitment
- D4 – High Competence – High commitment
In my previous job at an athletic retailer there were 17 stores in our district, amongst these 17 stores a wide array of these developmental levels were expressed amongst the employees, as well as these leadership styles amongst management. I wish I would have known what I know now back then. In our district we had a store that underperformed frequently. In addition to not meeting sales goals the employees performed on a D2 level. They lacked understanding of company initiatives, service excellence, and store operations. They were a small team but none of them were motivated or committed to the position due to a lack of engagement and training from their supervisor. The supervisor was a S4 level manager. He was very low directive and didn’t give his team direction almost at all, this fell on the shoulders of support management but support management was not adequately trained. He was also low supportive as he didn’t care about or support the developmental needs of his team. There were a few managers within our district that did not plan on their last stop on their career path being a store manager however they were committed to the position, the manager stated previously was not. With the understanding he would not be in this for the long run he did not care and his results were a direct example of that. This manager was liked by his team because he was known as being “easy”. The team got away with almost everything and did not have to work hard under his leadership. They were going to work to simply clock hours. There was also significate evidence of employee theft. As excepted this manager was let go. A new manager was put into place shorty after and within a few weeks 10 out of 18 employees resigned. Mostly because they did not like being managed or taking direction but also because the replacement manager went in with a very high directive approach and not as high as a supportive approach
According to this SLII model when dealing with D2 level employees the manager must adapt to a S2 level style of leadership which would be a high directive and high supportive relationship. The replacement manager did not provide high support because he was biased on their commitment due to prior results and behavior and believed they were not the right fit for the job. Its likely the new manager did not consider the previous leadership they were under and may have had a less of a hard time replacing all the employees who walked if he would have supported those employees more. However, I do question that aspect of the model, if you have D2, D3 level followers and you take the approach of a S1 leader is it a good thing those employees left the company, leaving room for a new set of employees to work directly under a S2 level manager? The manager who previously acted in a high directive – low supportive manner. Ultimately after 90 days the store had a new team and was running like a well oiled machine, hitting all metric goals. The high directive and low supportive approach wasn’t ideal in this situation but with the employees resigning it left room to get the right team in place.
Reference:
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
pxn5027 says
Jessica,
While our book states that a leader must provide a supporting behavior that correlates to the development level of the follower I agree with the approach that the new manager took (Northouse, 2016). I know our book doesn’t state this word for word, however with what you have described in your blog, if I were that new manager I would treat everyone as a D1 as well, unless their position stated otherwise (Northouse, 2016).
The reason for this is because I would have a huge lack of confidence in the previous managers abilities to act as a manager and ensure that his/her people were properly trained, especially with employee theft occurring. These factors alone would cause me to question everything that they have been taught, unless there is more then meets the eye to understanding what is happening here.
The new manager would not have to continually treat the employees with an S1 method of behavior though (Northouse, 2016). This new manager in my opinion would treat them with a directive behavior until they prove that they are capable of more (Northouse, 2016). On the other hand, the new manager could have known that there would ultimately be problems with some employees no matter what, and with him/her being so directive, it was only a matter of time before they would resign, which would open the door for fresh new and energetic employees to become hired. This is only my opinion on the situation though, as I’m only taking what I see for face value.
References:
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (Seventh ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.