According to the situational approach developed by Hersey and Blanchard (1969), effective leaders are those individuals capable of adapting “his or her style to the demands of different situations” (Northouse, 2013, p. 99). In other words, the situational approach operates on the premise that “different situations demand different kinds of leadership”, whereby leaders are most successful when they tailor their approach to the needs of a particular situation. Furthermore, the situational approach emphasizes that leadership is composed of two specific dimensions: directive and supportive. The directive dimension entails behaviors that
help group members accomplish goals by giving directions, establishing goals
and methods of evaluation, setting time lines, defining roles, and showing how
the goals are to be achieved. [These] behaviors clarify, often with one-way
communication, what is to be done, how it is to be done, and who is responsible
for doing it. (Northouse, 2013, p. 101)
As for the supportive dimension, this encompasses behaviors that “help group members feel comfortable about themselves, their coworkers, and the situation. [They] involve two-way communication and responses that show social and emotional support to others” (Northouse, 2013, p. 101). In order for a leader to determine the type of guidance needed, they “must evaluate her or his employees and assess how competent and committed they are to perform a given task” (Northouse, 2013, p. 99). Therefore, the use of either supportive or directive behaviors provided by the leader should correspond accordingly with both the skills and motivation exhibited by followers in that specific situation.
In fact, the situational approach identifies four distinct leadership styles along with four different development levels of subordinates, creating the situational leadership model. Within this model, it indicates how leaders may adjust their directive and supportive behavior in order to best serve the development levels of their followers. To begin, the first leadership style (S1) known as directing is comprised of high directive and low supportive behavior. This type of style is intended for followers that have a development level of D1, which means they are “low in competence and high in commitment” (Northouse, 2013, p. 102). By using this style of leadership with D1 followers, it allows leaders to focus communication on goal achievements that provide precise instructions on how to accomplish tasks through the utilization of careful supervision without the interruption of spending much time on supportive measures. As followers gain additional skills in the job, they acquire “some competence but [have] low commitment” making them D2 employees (Northouse, 2013, p. 102). This level of development corresponds with the second leadership style (S2) referred to as coaching, as it involves high directive and high supportive behaviors. Not only does coaching focus on communication of goal accomplishments (i.e. instructions), but it also functions to provide for followers’ socioemotional needs using encouragement as well as soliciting input. For followers that have “moderate to high competence but may lack commitment”, they are defined as D3 employees. These individuals know the skills required of them, yet they are unsure of their own ability to complete tasks unassisted. Hence, the third style of leadership (S3) designated as supporting entails high supportive and low directive behaviors. Through the application of these measures, leaders focus more on “listening, praising, asking for input and giving feedback” in order to encourage their subordinates to use their own skills to meet objectives and relying less on the leader for help. Lastly are employees classified as D4 whereby they are both very competent and highly committed, giving them the skills and motivation to accomplish goals. Consequently, the fourth leadership style (S4) of delegating exhibits low supportive and low directive behaviors with the intention to promote employees responsibility by allowing them to determine how best to meet goals with little input from the leader. Therefore, each leadership style is matched to the development level of followers in hopes of meeting the unique demands of diverse situations
Due to the fact that followers move back and forth between the various development levels in their jobs, this necessitates the need for leaders to continually monitor and utilize different leadership styles in order to be most effective. Personally, I have found the situational approach to be quite constructive in aiding followers in achieving a higher level of development. As an example, when I started working for an English instructor (Dr. Davis) in college, I had absolutely no idea how tasks were to be completed yet I was very enthusiastic and eager to learn. Consequently, Dr. Davis used the directing style of leadership whereby she provided me with specific instructions on how she wanted her course materials updated, kept track of, and prepared before each class. Additionally, I was shown where to pick up and drop off mail, where to make copies, how to log on to the instructors’ computer, where paperwork was filed, and the general operations of the office. In time, I became more comfortable with the routine tasks, however my initial level of motivation to learn the positions started to wane. As a result of my growing competence in the position, Dr. Davis changed her leadership style to that of coaching whereby she would be quite encouraging of my work and solicit my input when it came to class projects. Moreover, she would still provide me with guidance on how tasks were to be completed, but with less oversight. From there, I developed the skills essential to be successful in my position, but I would still seek out clarification and assurance that I was doing my work correctly. Shortly there after, Dr. Davis began utilizing the supporting style of leadership allowing me to make the decisions concerning the usual scenarios, but still being available for any thing that was out of the ordinary. In the end, I obtained the skills necessary for the position as well as having the drive to get the work done right, which ultimately lead to Dr. Davis using the delegating style of leadership. Under this leadership style, Dr. Davis would leave lists of things to do and then I would complete them in the manner I felt was most fit. Towards the end of my employment at the college, I would do most of my work when Dr. Davis was not in the office as we had come to a common understanding of what my responsibilities encompassed and a schedule of when these tasks would be completed. Therefore, the leadership styles used by Dr. Davis were adjusted according to the progression of my development levels as a means of enhancing effective leadership.
Nevertheless, it was not until reading about the situational approach that I gained a better understanding of Dr. Davis’ leadership styles. The only thing that I was quite sure of after working for Dr. Davis was how she was one of the best leaders I have ever had the pleasure of working with. Based off of personal experience, if I could work for another manager that employed the situational approach to leadership, I believe I would be a very happy, motivated employee. Thus, in my opinion the situational approach* holds much potential when it comes to helping companies achieve leadership effectiveness.
References
Blanchard, K. (1994). Ken Blanchard’s situational leadership II: The article. Retrieved from wed.siu.edu/faculty/BPutnam/566/Situational_Leadership_Article.pdf *link
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969), Life-cycle theory of leadership. Training and Development Journal, 23, 26-34.
Image Source: Retrieved from http://www.kellypetrock.com/index.php?m=10&y=09&entry=entry091002-141448
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.