Having to span multiple generations in my career, from the baby boomers when I enlisted, serving with generation X as a part of my own and now the millennial, I had to learn as much as I could regarding situational leadership to be able to cater to the evolution of the workforce. Northouse (2016) states that, “the premise of the theory is that different situations demand different kinds of leadership” (pg. 93). This is an exercise I encounter frequently.
When I first joined, the baby boomers were long into their career and set in their ways. Dealing with them came easy for me. Though I couldn’t relate socially, I found that they were much more direct in how they dealt with others, which I was appreciative of because there was little confusion on the message. It was my experience that if you were doing well, you wouldn’t hear much, but if you screwed up, you’d be sure to know. The assumption was that you knew what had to be done or would put in the effort to learn what was needed. No one had time to hold your hand because there was work to be done so everyone could go home. This coincides with how the text discusses the directive dimension of the situational approach (pg. 93), where the commitment and competency were high, as this was the culture onboard.
After a few duty stations, my generation, the “X’s”, made up the bulk of the force because the boomers were now retiring. We were now taking leadership roles. Though we were still on the lower fringes of the rank structure, we were now responsible for others. Because we were now the knowledgeable (competent) ones, it was incumbent that we trained up the “new guys”. Many of us still had the commitment to do what was needed without being told, but I saw that this was not the case with the newest generation coming in. Perhaps it was just my perception, but they required a lot more of the other dimension of the situational approach, the supportive dimension.
This has increasingly been the case with new personnel rolling in. I’ve found that there is little interest in becoming completely fluent at their field. Status quo seems to be the acceptable standard. There is less commitment and competency, which has made me shift from the direction dimension, which suits me more, to the supportive, where I find myself spending a lot of my time, teaching and convincing of why something is done a certain way. Northouse talks about the four leadership styles. I find that I have migrated from the directive style, considered to be high-directive and low-supportive, through the coaching style, which is high-directive and high-supportive, to the more common for me, supporting approach, which is high-supportive and low-directive. Of course, as we all transition out, the goal is train ourselves out of the job. We have to teach our replacements to be able to stand on their own. Now that I am months away from retirement, I try to let them deal with the day-to-day on their own. I employ the delegating approach, where there is low-direction and low-support, because they have to build their confidence that they can do it on their own. Of course, I make sure that they get what is needed, but I try to let them figure it out.
I mention all of this backstory because the text talks about how this theory is dependent on the situation and based on the development level of followers. The text outlines four developmental levels as well (pg. 96), which influence how a leader can move from directive to supportive and vice versa. Because the level of commitment is different from person to person because of personal motivations, I have to first make sure that their competency level is high. Setting a knowledge and capability (competency) baseline will allow me to move across the continuum from directive to supportive dimensions with each individual, to try to get the commitment level high to match. Getting both of these levels up will ensure that I did my job and helped to mold leaders who are prepared to carry on the mission.
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Los Angeles, Calif.: SAGE.
hss5134 says
I really liked this post because you clearly demonstrate the fluidity needed within this theory when having to switch leadership styles in order to accommodate the development level of workers that you are interacting with (Northouse, 2016, p. 94-97). It sounds like based on their commitment levels the employees you were working with that required supportive behaviors were probably D1 or D2 followers because according to Northouse (2016) they tend to have low commitment (p. 96). I have also found that newer employees have much lower commitment and/or competency too. However, even when using a coaching approach or directive style they have not really improved in commitment levels where I work. In fact, there is one employee in particular who has remained at D2 level and she has been working there for a year. I think this has something to do with the fact that there are never trainers present as all trainers have moved on to new positions and our team leads are not there on a weekly basis so when there is only one manager walking around in the store these newer employees may not feel the need to do their job because they are essentially not being supervised at least 85% of the time. With directing or coaching there is supposed to be close supervision which I think is what is missing, supervisors don’t closely monitor our work even within our first few weeks so new employees don’t feel the need to be committed (Northouse, 2016, p. 94). When I started working there, there were trainers that worked with us and showed us how to do each job but also stayed and worked with use our first few shifts. Managers and team leaders also frequently asked how we were doing and monitored our progress. Now we only have to worry about our manager walking past or our annual review so there is no pressure to perform. I am glad to hear that at your job there is a strong management team who knows how important it is to monitor new employees closely until they have increased their competency and commitment.
References
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.