Situational Leadership is the idea that effective leaders adapt their style to each situation. No one style is appropriate for all situations. Leaders may use a different style in each situation, even when working with the same team, followers or employees.
Most models use two dimensions on which leaders can adapt their style:
Leaders can choose to be high or low on each. This is often represented as a 2x2 matrix, for example:
Situational Leadership Theory, now named the Situational Leadership Model, is a model created by Dr. Paul Hersey and Dr. Ken Blanchard, developed while working on the text book, Management of Organizational Behavior.[1] The theory was first introduced in 1969 as "Life Cycle Theory of Leadership".[2] During the mid-1970s, Life Cycle Theory of Leadership was renamed "Situational Leadership Theory."[3]
Situational Leadership is one of several two-factor leadership theories or models that emerged starting in the mid-1940s[4] and continuing through the 1960s, which also include Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid, William James Reddin's 3D Theory, Herzberg's Two-factor theory, and others.
In the late 1970s/ early 1980s, Hersey and Blanchard both developed their own slightly divergent versions of the Situational Leadership Theory: The Situational Leadership Model (Hersey) and the Situational Leadership II model (Blanchard et al.).[5] In 2018, it was agreed that the Blanchard version of the model be trademarked as SLII and the Hersey version of the model to remain trademarked as Situational Leadership.[6]
The fundamental principle of the Situational Leadership Model is that there is no single "best" style of leadership. Effective leadership is task-relevant, and the most successful leaders are those who adapt their leadership style to the Performance Readiness level (ability and willingness) of the individual or group they are attempting to lead or influence. Effective leadership varies, not only with the person or group that is being influenced, but it also depends on the task, job, or function that needs to be accomplished.[3]
Several studies do not support all of the prescriptions offered by situational leadership theory.
Hersey and Blanchard characterized leadership style in terms of the amount of task behavior and relationship behavior that the leader provides to their followers. They categorized all leadership styles into four behavior styles based on combinations of either high or low task behavior and relationship behavior, which they named S1 to S4. The titles for three of these styles differ depending on which version of the model is used.[7]
| S4 | S3 | S2 | S1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delegating | Participating (Supporting) | Selling (Coaching) | Telling (Directing) | |
| Leaders delegate most of the responsibility to the group. They monitor progress but are less involved in decision-making. | Leaders focus on relationships and less on providing direction. They work with the team and share decision-making responsibilities. | Leaders provide direction. But they attempt to sell their ideas to get people on board. | Leaders tell people what to do and how to do it. | |
| Low task behavior. Low relationship behavior. | Low task behavior. High relationship behavior. | High task behavior. High relationship behavior. | High task behavior. Low relationship behavior. |
Of these, no one style is considered optimal for all leaders to use all the time. Situational Leadership holds that effective leaders need to be flexible and must adapt themselves according to the situation.
The right leadership style will depend on the person or group being led. The Hersey–Blanchard Situational Leadership theory identified four levels of maturity M1 through M4:
| High | Medium | Low | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M4 | M3 | M2 | M1 | |
| High maturity | Medium maturity, higher skills but lacking confidence | Medium maturity, limited skills | Low maturity | |
| Individuals are able to do the task on their own and are comfortable with their own ability to do it well. They are able and willing to not only do the task, but to take responsibility for the task. | Individuals are ready and willing to do the task. They have the skills but are not confident in their abilities. | Individuals are willing to do the task but lack the skills to do it successfully. | Individuals lack the knowledge, skills, or confidence to work on their own, and they often are unwilling to take the task on. | |
In later editions of Management of Organizational Behavior, the follower's development continuum was changed from Maturity levels to Follower Readiness, indicative of how ready a person is to perform a specific task, not a personal characteristic.[8] In the ninth edition, it was further refined and relabeled Performance Readiness. According to Hersey, Performance Readiness is dynamic and as it changes, depending on the task at hand, it also varies, depending on the individual and the specific situation. [9]
As described above, Maturity Level was revised into Performance Readiness in later versions of Situational Leadership. The Performance Readiness levels are as follows.
| High | Medium | Low | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R4 | R3 | R2 | R1 | |
| Able and Confident and Willing | Able but Insecure or Unwilling | Unable but Confident and Willing | Unable and Insecure or Unwilling | |
Hersey maintains that development is not a linear function. When developing Performance Readiness people are unique. Everyone does not start at R1, then progress to R2, R3 and then R4. "A good leader develops the competence and commitment of their people so they're self-motivated rather than dependent on others for direction and guidance."[10] According to Hersey's book, a leader's high, realistic expectation causes high performance of followers; a leader's low expectations lead to low performance of followers.
Hersey and Blanchard continued to iterate on the original theory until 1977 when they mutually agreed to run their respective companies. In the late 1970s, Hersey changed the name from "situational leadership theory" to "situational leadership".
In 1979, Ken Blanchard founded Blanchard Training & Development, Inc. (later The Ken Blanchard Companies), together with his wife Margie Blanchard and a board of founding associates. Over time, this group made changes to the concepts of the original situational leadership theory in several key areas, which included the research base, the leadership style labels, and the individual's development level continuum.[5]
In 1985 Blanchard introduced Situational Leadership II (SLII) in the book Leadership and the One Minute Manager: A Situational Approach to Managing People. Blanchard and his colleagues continued to iterate and revise the book.[5]
The situational leadership II (SLII) model acknowledged the existing research of the situational leadership theory and revised the concepts based on feedback from clients, practicing managers, and the work of several leading researchers in the field of group development.[5]
The primary sources included:
The Situational Leadership II model uses the terms "supportive behavior" where SL used "relationship behavior" and "directive behavior" where SL used "task behavior".
Blanchard's situational leadership II model uses the terms "competence" (ability, knowledge, and skill) and "commitment" (confidence and motivation) to describe different levels of development.[5]
According to Ken Blanchard, "Four combinations of competence and commitment make up what we call 'development level.'"
| D4 | D3 | D2 | D1 | |
| Self-reliant Achiever: High competence with high commitment | Capable but Cautious Performer: High competence with low/variable commitment | Disillusioned Learner: Low/middling competence with low commitment | Enthusiastic Beginner: Low competence with high commitment[12] |
In order to make an effective cycle, a leader needs to motivate followers properly by adjusting their leadership style to the development level of the person. Blanchard postulates that Enthusiastic Beginners (D1) need a directing leadership style while Disillusioned Learners (D2) require a coaching style. He suggests that Capable but Cautious Performers (D3) respond best to a Supporting leadership style and Self-reliant Achievers (D4) need leaders who offer a delegating style.
The situational leadership II model tends to view development as an evolutionary progression meaning that when individuals approach a new task for the first time, they start out with little or no knowledge, ability or skills, but with high enthusiasm, motivation, and commitment. Blanchard views development as a process as the individual moves from developing to developed, in this viewpoint it is still incumbent upon the leader to diagnose development level and then use the appropriate leadership style which can vary based on each task, goal, or assignment.
In the Blanchard SLII model, the belief is that an individual comes to a new task or role with low competence (knowledge and transferable skills) but high commitment. As the individual gains experience and is appropriately supported and directed by their leader they reach development level 2 and gain some competence, but their commitment drops because the task may be more complex than the individual had originally perceived when they began the task. With the direction and support of their leader, the individual moves to development level 3 where competence can still be variable—fluctuating between moderate to high knowledge, ability and transferable skills and variable commitment as they continue to gain mastery of the task or role. Finally, the individual moves to development level 4 where competence and commitment are high.
Despite its intuitive appeal, several studies do not support the prescriptions offered by situational leadership theory. To determine the validity of the prescriptions suggested by the Hersey and Blanchard approach, Vecchio (1987)[13] conducted a study of more than 300 high school teachers and their principals. He found that newly hired teachers were more satisfied and performed better under principals who had highly structured leadership styles, but the performance of more experienced and mature teachers was unrelated to the style their principals exhibited. In essence, the Vecchio findings suggest that in terms of situational leadership, it is appropriate to match a highly structured S1 style of leadership with immature subordinates, but it is not clear (incomplete research) whether it is appropriate to match S2, S3, or S4, respectively, with more mature subordinates. In a replication study using University employees, Fernandez and Vecchio (1997)[14] found similar results. Taken together, these studies fail to support the basic recommendations suggested by the situational leadership model.
A 2009 study[15] found the 2007 revised theory was a poorer predictor of subordinate performance and attitudes than the original version from 1972. Survey data collected from 357 banking employees and 80 supervisors, sampled from 10 Norwegian financial institutions, were analyzed for predicted interactions.