There is not a sane or decent human being that wakes up in the morning and says, “I am purposefully going to make the lives of others harder today.” Yet, we have all had experiences with bosses and supervisors that have made us question our own worth and capabilities. We have all been in environments in which we feel as though we can’t perform. How can both be true? How can someone with good intentions cause us so much claustrophobia? I believe the answer lies in their ability to know their followers and to understand perspectives that may be different from their own.
To dive deeper into this, it is first necessary to understand the fundamentals of the situational approach. Northouse (2019) describes situational leadership as different situations requiring different leadership. This approach requires a leader to be adaptive to the needs and the circumstances of the followers (Northouse, 2019). Specifically, the Situational Leadership II (SLII) model (Blanchard et al., 1993; Blanchard et al., 2013) as provided by Northouse (2019), shows that situational leadership styles exist on a matrix of direction and support provided by a leader to a follower. The amount of direction and support provided by the leader will depend on the followers competence and commitment to the goal (Northouse, 2019).
One of my favorite examples of the situational approach to leadership comes from the movie The Blind Side (Hancock, 2009). In order to understand the movie scenario, there are a few key points to highlight for those that have never seen the movie. Leigh Anne Tuohy, played brilliantly by Sandra Bullock, adopts young boy Michael Oher, actor Quinton Aaron. He is a poor boy from a bad neighborhood that is experiencing family for the first time. She supports his participation in football and even attends his practices (Hancock, 2009). It is during one of those practices that Michael wasn’t able to function within the team because he was so uncomfortable and did not know his role. The coach, not knowing what to do nor anything about Michael, did nothing (Hancock, 2009). Leigh Anne, knowing Michael very well, marched directly onto the field despite outside objections. She explained to Michael exact instructions about his role and how we is expected to support his team. She did so in a way that made sense to him and played on his motivation of protective instincts. SPOILER ALERT: Michael Oher goes on to become a famous football player. (Hancock, 2009).
In this situation, we have a football player that had the innate skill to be a professional football player. He was practicing under a coach that could not get him to perform despite the skill lying just under the surface (Hancock, 2009). Why? The answer is simple. The coach could not make an effective evaluation of Michael’s need for direction and support because he did not know him. This lack of understanding led him into taking the S4, low supportive-low directive style, also called delegating. Typically this is seen when a follower has a high level of competence and a high level of motivation (Northouse, 2019), which was true for the rest of the team (Hancock, 2019). However, Leigh Anne knew better and approached Michael with S1, high directive-low supportive style, also called the directing style. Directing style is used when someone requires significant guidance and is not yet ready to be independent (requiring support) (Northouse, 2019). Immediately following, Michael ran a perfect play (Hancock, 2009).
As I continue to reach through the various approaches to leadership, one thing consistently stands out to me. It is imperative to understand your followers. Without doing so, even the most earnest attempt at valuable leadership can fail. The coach with all of his experience, was not able to forge an effective football player simply because he could not understand him (Hancock, 2009).
References:
Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. 8th Edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Hancock, J. L. (2009). The Blind Side. Warner Bros.
Thank you for your blog, as I found it interesting and informative. I have never watched the movie; however, now I am interested in seeing it. Unfortunately, a football coach could not know the direction the child needed to be successful, which happens a lot in leader-follower relationships. Situational Leadership provides easy steps to follow for the leader to ensure his/her followers are successful. Still, the leader has to be committed to learning which styles are needed. You did a good job identifying which style the coach and Sandra Bullock fit in about this movie. I agree that the coach fits into the S4 style with low supportive and low directive behavior (Northouse, 2019). This type is when the leader is not invested in the follower’s need and offers no support and direction (Northouse, 2019). It was clear that the coach’s leadership style was not registering with Aaron, which led to low performance. This often happens in the work setting as supervisors do not know how to meet employees and provide them with the appropriate leadership style. Although I have not seen the movie, Aaron would be characterized on the D1 level as having low competence and high commitment (Northouse, 2019). Northouse (2019) describes this level as when a person is new at a task but is unsure how to accomplish it but excited about the challenge. Aaron was highly committed to football because he was there; however, he just needed the appropriate direction.
I enjoy the roles Sandra Bullock plays, and in her own life, she has adopted children and appears to be a great mom, just as she was in this movie. Again, I agree with you about recognizing the appropriate style that needed to be utilized for her son’s success, the S1 technique. S1 is the directing style that encompasses high directing and low supporting (Northouse, 2019). This style is what Aaron needed to be successful since he was unsure of what his role was. Leigh Anne knew that Aaron needed specific direction, and that is what she provided him. This movie is an excellent example of how important it is to understand our place in life to be successful.
Thank you for introducing this movie and using it as an example of Situational Leadership. Northouse has shown us through the reading that it may not be the follower but the leader’s inability to recognize the needs of the followers. The Situational Leadership SLII Model is a good and easy way for leaders to identify what they should be providing their followers to succeed if they hit a bump in the road with accomplishing tasks.
Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. 8th Edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Your topic caught my attention with the first paragraph largely due to the reality that this is something that most, if not all of us have experienced. I can think of several supervisors and managers that I have had in the past that seems to always make the day hard. You ask a great question initially; do they really get up every morning with the intention to make everyone’s day difficult? Except for one, I would say no, but for some reason that was the perception they gave.
To look at this closer I think you provided a good example of one of the reasons this may occur and its connection to situational leadership. With situational leadership, Northouse points out that, “The situational approach stresses that leadership is composed of both a directive and a supportive dimension, and that each has to be applied appropriately in a given situation.” (Northouse, 2019) This effectively means that a leader needs to be agile and able to determine based on the situation whether a supportive, directive, or combination of both should be applied.
The example you used with the movie The Blind Side, and how it relates with our lessons was excellent. Reading through your summary, it hit me that this example also shows a connection to the Leader-Member Exchange theory. Before going into the connection, I want to reference a couple facts from the movie summary. Michael wasn’t able to function, largely due to not being comfortable or understanding his role on the team. The coach’s reaction was to effectively provide no support or direction since he was missing a connection with Michael.
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory bases its approach on the interactions of followers and leaders instead of looking at one or the other. (Northouse, 2019) Researchers have found that a vertical linkage exists between leaders and followers, referred to as a dyadic relationship. From this, two groups were established, the in-group and the out-group. A follower’s membership into one of these two groups relies on their interactions with the leader and how well they work with them. Northouse states, “In addition, membership in one group or the other is based on how followers involve themselves in expanding their role responsibilities with the leader”. (Northouse, 2019)
To relate this to the movie example, Michael most likely would have been placed into the out-group based on the lack of connection with the coach or initiative to engage. This would affect how the coach reacts based on this example from Northouse, “Followers in the in-group receive more information, influence, confidence, and concern from their leaders than do out-group followers” (Northouse, 2019)
One of the biggest points to this theory is that the exchange is considered equal. Michael needed to engage and show his enthusiasm to participate with the team and learn what he didn’t know. Northouse support this, “found that leaders look for followers who exhibit enthusiasm, participation, gregariousness, and extraversion.” (Northouse, 2019) On the flip side, the coach also failed to provide a valuable exchange to encourage those characteristics from Michael. Northouse points out that a follower looks to leaders that are pleasant, trusting, and more importantly cooperative. (Northouse, 2019) This concepts reinforces the two way street that is required by both parties to establish an effective leader-follower exchange relationship.
Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. 8th Edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.