Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Evaluating and Conceptualizing the Style Approach

by

Assessing leadership is crucial when it comes to determining traits that are ideal for leadership. The style approach, which was spoken about in this week’s lesson, is an important aspect when it comes to assessing leadership (Hamel, 2021). The process of assessing leadership can be challenging, so it is crucial that it is done right. According to Hamel (2021), this theory explains that there are two types of behavior that when combined together, they help influence subordinates to achieve something. This reinforces the fact that there is a correlation between relationship and task behaviors. Hamel (2021) describes the first are the task behaviors, which are the ones that focus on achieving goals, and the second, relationship behaviors, as those that help followers feel more secure with themselves, each other, and in the situation. 

To try to better understand the concepts spoken about in Lesson 5, I tried to think about the definition of the style approach theory and try to apply it to real-life. My example may not be realistic, however, the different roles present help me better understand the correlation between the task and relationship behaviors. I thought about a baker and his/her crew while making and decorating a cake in the kitchen. 

Of course, cooperation and patience are important for teamwork, but they are also helpful when defining trait behaviors. These two traits help enforce the accomplishment of a goal by encouraging the baker’s team (or subordinates) to work together. It takes the patience of explaining directions and listening to the directions by the leader and cooperation with others to follow through to get the task done. As well as the trait behaviors, there are the relationship behaviors. These are behaviors such as kindness expressed from the baker, meaning the instructions are explained so the team can understand and not in a condescending way. 

As all approaches have, there are strengths and weaknesses to the Style Approach (Hamel, 2021). These are important to acknowledge so the task is accomplished in the most effective way possible. First let’s address the weaknesses. Though this approach reveals about the style of a leader, it does not acknowledge performance outcomes (Hamel, 2021). How leaders perform when trying to accomplish a task is important for the entire process. In Lesson 5, Hamel (2021) explains how this approach also fails to find one specific leadership style that is effective in the majority of situations. It would be helpful if the theory was guaranteed to work in most situations, however, unfortunately it is not. Its strengths highlight its wide support, its help in understanding leadership, and the fact that leader behaviors can be taught and trained reinforces that leaders are made, not born (Hamel, 2021). Acknowledging the strengths and taking into consideration the weaknesses of the Style Approach can help make this theory overall more effective in leadership.

 

Hamel, R. (2021). Lesson 5: Style and Situational Approaches.

How Culture differences influence Style and Situational Leadership approaches

by

Style approaches mainly focus on leadership behaviors, this approach has two key dimensions one is initiating structure, which also called task behaviors, another one is a consideration, which also called relationship behaviors. The first dimension talks about how many leaders would focus on the completion of the tasks, specific target the mission or the goal itself. The second dimension would talk about how leaders solve relationship-related problems like teamwork and corporation with others. This is very related to cultural differences because as we can see that Frances is very high on individualist, which means the leader should adjust their leadership style in relationship behavior strategy to focus more on individual personal goal more and focus more on collectivize goal more for Singapore. What’s more, they should also adjust their task behavior based on Uncertainty avoidance. During the process of accomplishing tasks, France would not like to be more creative and likely to follow the rules since they score very high on uncertainty avoidances. However, leaders should also change in Singapore since they score very low on uncertainty avoidances, which means they would likely be more creative and riskier taking. (Northouse, 2019)

 

Name of the Country Power distance Individualistic Masculine Uncertainty Avoidance Long term
France 68 71 43 86 63
Singapore 74 20 48 8 72

 

The situational approach mainly focuses on the interaction between the leader and follower, they create different segments in leader’s behaviors like directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating. Each also separates by using two main dimensions, task behavior, and relationship behavior. Then, the theory creates four segments in follower’s developmental levels and are segmented by followers’ ableness, willingness, and confidence to perform the new task. Those can also be influenced by cultural differences, for example during the relational behavior, if the leader target more on individual development in France may increase their follower’s willingness to perform the task, vice versa for Singapore. The directive and supportive behavior will also be different because of cultural differences, it may be beneficial for leaders in France to be more supportive, but in Singapore, it may be better to be high on directive since they are more creative just need to focus more on the direction. (Northouse, 2019)

 

Those we can assume that it would be beneficial for leaders and followers to adjust their behavior or to recognize the differences between each other’s cultures. Then the leader should use a strategy that most fits one countries culture not the other one.

 

References:

Insights, H. (2020, August 12). Country comparison. Retrieved February 21, 2021, from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/singapore/

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sage Publishing

The Pennsylvania State University. (2021). Leadership in Work Settings, PSYCH 485, Lesson 4: Introduction to Style and situational Approaches

Style and Situation

by

Hello Everyone,

This lesson discussed the style and situational approaches to leadership. The style approach focuses on behaviors that leaders engage in, separated into task behaviors and relationship behaviors (PSU WC, 2021, L. 5, p. 3). Task behaviors are those which support goal achievement, while relationship behaviors focus on the interactions between group members (Northouse, 2019, p. 73). The style approach seeks to explain the various ways leaders combine task and relationship behaviors to create effective teams who are able to achieve goals outlined by the leader or organization.

After reading about Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid (Northouse, 2019, pp. 76-79), I attempted to determine where my leadership style would be placed. The grid compares a leaders concern for results and concern for people on the x and y axis, using a scale of one through nine for both. One is low concern, while nine demonstrates high levels of concern. When I first entered supervisory roles, my task focus was clearly higher than my relationship focus. I was more concerned with proving that I could meet requirements, rather than being able to effectively work with others. I was closer to the authority-compliance management that team management, or middle of the road management (Northouse, 2019, p. 77). I would often only communicate if it was to provide instructions, or give clarification if needed. Over time, I realized that this behavior was not appropriate. Those I supervised would only come to me for clarification, however did not feel comfortable approaching me with other issues. I needed to change. I began to engage more with my staff, and began to seek their input on decisions which would impact their work behaviors. I became more willing to compromise on how tasks were approached, so long as it did not impact task completion or goal achievement. I focused on being more willing to address issues, actively listening to concerns among my staff and explaining how their actions will positively or negatively affect desired outcomes. I also took greater care to explain why certain decisions were made, in an attempt to be more open (Northouse, 2019, pp. 77-78). Today, I feel that my leadership style would be placed at about a (9,7) on Blake and Mouton’s Grid, between middle-of-the-road management and team management . I still remain primarily task focused, but now more actively seek to engage my employees. In doing so I feel that my team is more willing to accept undesired decisions, as they are more involved with the process.

However, there is not one style of leadership which is appropriate for all situations. The situational approach was introduced by Hersey and Blanchard (1969, as cited in PSU WC, 2021), and examines how leaders behave in different situations (L. 5, p. 12). This theory explains leadership as either directive or supportive, and actively advises leaders on what combination is suited for various situations. Directive behaviors are similar to the task behaviors described by Blake and Mouton (Northouse, 2019), while supportive behaviors include those which are more relationship focused (p. 76). Blanchard (2008) established four categories of leadership behavior: directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating (as cited in PSU WC, 2021, L. 5, p. 12). These styles allow for leaders to choose the best way to interact with followers, depending on the situation.

Currently, I have five employees under my supervision. One, Ken, has been at the facility for ten years, and is also a supervisor. With him, I primarily use a delegating style, only interfering when he needs to be made aware of changes in procedure, or as information pertinent to his tasks arises. We honestly do not interact often, as he is located in another building, but I have full confidence that he will act appropriately in any situation. He would be considered developmental level 4 (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969, as cited in PSU WC, 2021, L. 5, p. 12). The other four vary between developmental levels 2 and 3, depending on the task. These employees have not been at the facility for a long time, at most eighteen months, and as such have not had to respond to the variety of issues myself and Ken have dealt with. With these employees I alternate between a coaching and supporting style. When they first encounter a new task, such as adding areas to their patrol routes, I tend to utilize a coaching style (Blanchard, 2008, as cited in PSU WC, 2021, L. 5, p. 12). This style is highly directive and supporting, similar to what I attempt to accomplish when introducing new tasks. First, I will explain the task in detail, identifying all goals such as ensuring certain doors are secure or looking for signs of attempted forced entry or degrading systems. I will give them specific items to look for, directing their behavior. Following this, I will encourage them to ask questions, ensure that they have any additional equipment or other tools to complete the new task, and encourage them to seek additional help as necessary. Once they and I feel that they understand what is required of them, my behavior will become more supportive. At this point, I do not feel that I have to remind them of the task, nor do I demand it be done in a specific way. The officer can choose the approach best suited to them, so long as responsibilities are met and goals fulfilled. The officers are encouraged to provide feedback on any aspect of their duties, in an attempt to address issues as a group.

While I normally attempt to use a coaching, supporting or delegating style, there are instances where a directing approach is required. The directing style occurs when the leader provides explicit instructions to followers, without seeking their input or discussing the decisions made (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969, as cited in PSU WC, 2021, L. 5, p. 12). My most important duty is to oversee security response to site emergencies, in coordination with medical first responders or other departments. In these events my group is dispersed across the site, and all communication with other departments occurs through me. In order to ensure that the efforts of multiple groups are successful, all decisions for my staff must be made by me. If decisions are made independently, it can have negative consequences for all parties. It is not that I feel they are incapable, but they will often not have all relevant information. Group members understand that once the event has ended, I will provide a thorough explanation of what occurred, and why we responded as we did. There simply is not time during the event to have a discussion. Applying these various leadership styles as necessary ensures that goals are met, while at the same time helping to develop the abilities of my staff.

-Turf

References

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sage Publishing.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2021). PSYCH 485, Lesson 5: Style and Situational Approaches [Online Course]. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2110258/modules/items/30985917.

The Leadership Grid in Action

by

The Leadership Grid has five categories of leadership: Country-Club Management, Team Management, Middle-of-the-road Management, Impoverished Management and Authority-Compliance Management (Northouse, 2019). While reading through the detailed descriptions of each management style it occured to me that I have used every one of these management styles at one time or another. Here are some examples.

Country-Club Managment – This one is basically keeping everyone happy so that they are happy to come to work and perform their jobs well. In my opinion, this is the ideal management style. As leaders we all know that to get the best performance from your team they have to want to do the work well for their own motivations. Having a happy staff means that you will get the optimal performance, generally. At my workplace we do as much as possible to keep our staff happy, including but not limited to paid holiday and PTO (not common in non-profit preschools), snacks and coffee provided daily, lunch provided by admin at least once a month but usually more. These are just a few of the things that we do to keep our staff happy which hopefully motivates them to want to do their best.

Team Managment – For me this is the gold standard of working as a team. Everyone knows that they can count on the other members of the team to hold up their end. Admins don’t have to be looking over anyone’s shoulders because they know and trust that their staff are doing their best. When you are staffed with experienced, committed professionals this is what you hope to have.

Middle-of-the-road Management – Generally this is the management style that occurs when we in the admin office are particularly bogged down with student registration and staff hiring. When we are basically just surviving minute to minute, we try to maintain middle-of-road management. We keep our ears open for any urgent situations that need our attention but rely heavily on staff to alert us to any issues that need to be addressed. We know that this is not a sustainable management style for long as it stresses the staff out and they begin to feel abandoned, which means their performance lags.

Impoverished Management – This one is obviously not ideal. Recently my boss and the only other admin at the preschool had to quarantine due to a potential Covid exposure. I was left in charge on the first day with kids in attendance after a nine month closure. Many days while she was out I was drowning in work, some of which I had not been trained to handle. I had zero time to step into classrooms to help or give teachers bathroom breaks. It was terrible. While reading the description of this management style I recognized many of those days that I was left to run the preschool on my own as a perfect example of impoverished management.

Authority-Compliance Mangement – We don’t run into this management style very often running a play-based preschoool. Any type of preschool is very hands-on for all staff members. The few times that I can remember using this style would have been when there were two staff members who couldn’t get along but had to work together for whatever reason. Generally, this would be a situation where two teachers start the year working together congenially and their relationship fractures for some reason. We don’t move teachers mid-year as its too disruptive for the kids. We try to take as much of the need for communication out of their working relationship by giving them both specific lists of responsibilities that they alone are in charge of. It’s absolutely not ideal but it generally works to get to the end of the year. The success of that strategy lies in the compliance part of this strategy, which you can never predict.

Although all five management styles are necessary and have their benefits, I strive for team management. What does everyone else think is the best management style of the five?

References

Northouse, P. (2019). Leadership : Theory and Practice (8th ed.). Los Angeles Sage.

The Stages of a Follower’s Development: Target

by

I had worked at Target all throughout high school and during college. While working at this part-time job, I have gone back and forth through all of the development stages multiple times throughout my time there. The development stages are a part of the situational approach to leadership, which states that leaders should match their leadership style to the situation and their followers (Northouse, 2019).

When I first started, I remember not knowing how to do anything, and was very timid due to this. I asked a lot of questions, and was very unsure of myself. I would have been classified as D1, being low in competence but high in commitment (Northouse, 2019). My supervisors and peers all treated me with the directing style (high directive, low supportive) as they explained to me what to do and how to use the different software (Northouse, 2019). I stayed in this stage for a few months as I was learning how to do everything.

After the first holiday season, I had been at Target for a few months and I was finally comfortable working without asking constant questions to my coworkers. However, my initial excitement for the job had died down and I entered into a stage of showing up to work, doing my job, and then going home. I had entered developmental level 2, some competence but low commitment (Northouse, 2019). My supervisors responded with a coaching leadership style (high directive, high supportive), as they still had to tell me what to do for each shift, but they would talk to me a little more and were starting to learn things about my life outside of Target (Northouse, 2019). I remember staying in this phase for at least a year.

At some point in my time at Target I had started becoming a little more ambitious, and was taking it upon myself to start cross-training in different apartments. I would ask questions on how to get items from the back, and how to backstock. I did this so I wasn’t always having to rely on the backroom workers. I was starting to be able to work more independently, and this freedom was increasing my enjoyment. I had entered developmental level 3 with moderate competence and variable commitment (Northouse, 2019). My supervisors responded by changing their leadership style more into a supporting role (high supportive, low directive), they no longer had to go over what I needed to do at each shift because I was able to figure it out myself (Northouse, 2019). When we did interact, it was more for casual conversation, than it was about work, and we would joke around.

I stayed in developmental level 3 for a while, but then I had switched departments to early mornings. With this I had a completely new set of responsibilities and so for a while I went back to developmental level 1 with a directing leadership style. However, due to my previous knowledge, once I learned all my new responsibilities I immediately switched to developmental level 3 with a supporting leadership style.

Eventually, I remember this one summer in particular, I had reached developmental level 4, with high competence and high commitment (Northouse, 2019). My supervisor would use a delegating style towards me (low supportive, low directive), I would go in everyday and do my job, and even acted as a trainer to the new employees and then leave (Northouse, 2019). I knew pretty much all there was to know about target, and my supervisors responded by giving me my own responsibilities and letting me do my job the way I saw fit.

Overall, my time with Target had not been stagnant. I went through all of the developmental levels and receives all of the different leadership styles. I had even gone back down to a lower developmental level at one point. This shows that the developmental levels are on a continuum that is fluid and leaders should be aware of this.

References:

Northouse, P .G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications

Skip to toolbar