My first office job was working for a small, local bank that employed about 250-300 workers and had just under a billion in assets. During my last couple years there the bank implemented the situational leadership approach using Situational Leadership II (SLII) (The Ken Blanchard Companies, 2012). By that time, I was an assistant manager, so I witnessed the change from the staff side and from the manager side. Neither side took the switch all that well at first (change like that never really goes well in the beginning!); however those in senior management made it very clear that they were 100% behind the SLII method. Any manager or staff member reported as not participating in SLII would receive the corresponding consequences. So we all took part in mandatory training, the managers to learn how to guide their staff through different development levels, and the staff to learn how to communicate which development level they are in when completing a particular task (Northouse, 2013). Initially, I think a lot of people were turned off by the idea of being labeled and labeling themselves with development levels. We can’t all fit so simply into four categories! However, the bigger picture that the situational approach and specifically SLII address is facilitating–sometimes forcing (arguably in a good way)–communication between managers and their staff.
In addition to the basic SLII structure, as part of the program, managers were required to meet with their employees one-on-one for 15 minutes once a week every week. That is another piece that people countered. Who has time to meet that often? And what can you get done in a 15-minute meeting? However, these one-on-one meetings were a central part of implementing the SLII method because it was during these meetings that staff and managers discuss development levels (The Ken Blanchard Companies, 2012). The difference between these one-on-one meetings and other more traditional meetings was that they were run by the staff member. In these meetings, staff members were to proactively communicate what development level they were in by telling their managers what they needed. “I need more direction in this task” or “I need this specific tool to complete this task”. “I need” became a familiar prompt around the office (I believe I have a keychain from that era that says, “I Need…” on it!). It was stressed over and over that these one-on-one meetings were supposed to be run by staff. If managers tried to take over the meeting, staff members were encouraged to interrupt and let the managers know that they were hijacking the meeting.
Thinking about some power-hungry managers I’ve worked with since then this technique sounds a little crazy, but it was actually very useful. So often staff members are afraid to talk about what they need and managers don’t have the sense to ask, both of which hurt productivity not to mention morale. The structure of these one-on-one meetings aimed to open up the lines of communication up and down the corporate ladder. Still there were objections. Doesn’t that shift the power completely away from the manager? It could, but it doesn’t have to. Just because staff members are encouraged to voice what they need doesn’t mean they will always get it. There are many reasons why employees can’t always have the best tools they need to do their job, including budget constraints, federal policies, company policies, and general feasibility of the request. The important piece is that the conversation happened; theoretically the manager and staff member are on the same page, and together they can figure out a way to get the job done.
Honestly, I don’t think the specific language of SLII matters all that much in theory. It’s really just a structured way of facilitating communication. However, in practice the specifics of the SLII method serve as the concrete process for people to hold on to while they navigate unfamiliar leadership waters. I think one of the most important pieces of the situational approach and specifically SLII is that they can help break down communication boundaries. It’s just important to know when following the program too religiously is counterproductive. When applying the situational approach, as with all the styles of leadership we’ve read about so far, I think it’s important to take what you need and leave the rest.
References:
The Ken Blanchard Companies. (2012). Situational leadership II (SLII). Retrieved from http://www.kenblanchard.com/Effective_Leadership_Solutions/One_to_One_Talent_Management/Management_Situational_Leadership_Training/
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: theory and practice (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.