Changing Minds Group: Leadership Theories. Situational Leadership
Hub member Mike Ormesher asked for our thoughts on Situational Leadership recently. To help us comment on this, here's a quick primer from changingminds.org :
Situational Leadership AssumptionsThe best action of the leader depends on a range of situational factors.
StyleWhen a decision is needed, an effective leader does not just fall into a single preferred style, such as using transactional or transformational methods. In practice, as they say, things are not that simple.
Factors that affect situational decisions include motivation and capability of followers. This, in turn, is affected by factors within the particular situation. The relationship between followers and the leader may be another factor that affects leader behavior as much as it does follower behavior.
The leaders' perception of the follower and the situation will affect what they do rather than the truth of the situation. The leader's perception of themselves and other factors such as stress and mood will also modify the leaders' behavior.
Yukl (1989) seeks to combine other approaches and identifies six variables:
- Subordinate effort: the motivation and actual effort expended.
- Subordinate ability and role clarity: followers knowing what to do and how to do it.
- Organization of the work: the structure of the work and utilization of resources.
- Cooperation and cohesiveness: of the group in working together.
- Resources and support: the availability of tools, materials, people, etc.
- External coordination: the need to collaborate with other groups.
Leaders here work on such factors as external relationships, acquisition of resources, managing demands on the group and managing the structures and culture of the group.
DiscussionTannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) identified three forces that led to the leader's action: the forces in the situation, the forces in then follower and also forces in the leader. This recognizes that the leader's style is highly variable, and even such distant events as a family argument can lead to the displacement activity of a more aggressive stance in an argument than usual.
Maier (1963) noted that leaders not only consider the likelihood of a follower accepting a suggestion, but also the overall importance of getting things done. Thus in critical situations, a leader is more likely to be directive in style simply because of the implications of failure.
See alsoHersey and Blanchard's Situational Leadership, Vroom and Yetton's Normative Model
Tannenbaum, A.S. and Schmitt, W.H. (1958) How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review, 36, March-April, 95-101
Maier, N.R.F. (1963). Problem-solving discussions and conferences: Leadership methods and skills. New York: McGraw-Hill
Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
»
- David Straker's blog
- Login or register to post comments
"There are some people who,if they don't already know, you can't tell 'em".
The Leadership Hub supports The Hunger Site. Click below to give food for free.
Thanks for your vote...
If you voted in the World Leadership Gurus Top 30, the Hub's founder, Phil Dourado, came 14th this year (2012), up three places from 17th last year. The organisers say it is "because of the originality and impact of your work" that Phil was put in the Top 30 in the first place. And that means this Hub and the award-winning corporate versions we run for large companies. For more on how a private corporate version of The Hub works, email: phildourado@theleadershiphub.com
Follow Us
Situational Leadership
I am one who works at practicing this kind of leadership and I also teach a leadership course at our local university. There are a number of issues that make this style difficult, but when practiced very effective. The first problem I see is that it is difficult for some leaders to subordinate their "style" to meet the needs of the follower. Many leaders feel that they have earned the "right" to lead in their own way, when in fact effective leaders give up that right. The other issue that comes with this kind of leadership is that one has to get to know the follower in ways that many leaders either feel uncomfortable with, or who do not feel they have the time to do so. It requires a different skill set than what has been traditionally thought of as a leader's role. As opposed to a leader being served, a leader serves in an effort to get the best from every person under his/her direction. It is not easy. But I can say having practiced this kind of leadership (or better said endeavoured to practice it) over 25 years and three different companies in three different industries that it is something that will increase productivity, and customer service and thus the bottom line
Fiedler's Contingency Model
Edgar, what you're saying reminds me of what Fiedler discussed in his Contingency Model. Fiedler's model assumes group performance depends on:
High levels of these three factors give the most favorable situation, low levels, the least favorable. Relationship-motivated leaders are most effective in moderately favorable situations. Task-motivated leaders are most effective at either end of the scale.
Certainly this is an imperfect model, but keeping the 3 factors in mind has been helpful for me to judge when I should be more collaborative or directive depending on the situation.
However, Fiedler suggests that it may be easier for leaders to change their situation to achieve effectiveness, rather than change their leadership style.
Interesting - what do others think? Does situaltional leadership come naturally to some, but not to others?
Fiedler's Contingency Model
- Pride will stop you from building a team
- Pride renders you un-teachable
- Pride closes your mind to feedback
- Pride causes you to keep the wrong people too long
- Pride will prevent you from admitting mistakes on one hand while it encourages you to take all the credit on the other
- Pride will cause you to pledge allegiance to the status quo rather than be open to change; especially if the change alters something you put into place
- Pride encourages poor character choices
And I would add an 8th one: Pride makes situational leadership nearly impossible. Pride is the antithesis of a Level 5 Leader. So I would like to suggest that the difference between those that situational leadership comes “naturally” may have more to do with a leader’s fortitude and emotional intelligence than with natural ability. Is the leader secure enough in himself that he can forego the need to be right all the time, and perhaps subordinate his/her style for the betterment of the follower and perhaps even the company? Can the leader pass on the glory and take responsibility when things are not so rosy? This takes guts and humility to do. Some might suggest it a sign of weakness, I would argue just the opposite. The bottom line is that the chore values, skills and talents have changed over time when it comes to leadership. Many leaders with only titles behind their names have not learned about these changes. Those leaders that have been given the right to lead by those that they lead in addition to the organization have learned what it now takes to lead.Take Care of the Horses
I couldn't agree more, Edgar.
You reminded me of something from when I worked for Colin Powell when he was a 4-star general. He displayed a sign above his desk with a Civil War quote from A. Lincoln: "I can make more generals, but horses cost money." Powell was a humble leader and never forgot who did the real work in his command - it wasn't the generals. :-)
Two more comments on Situational Leadership
Just to say I've ranted a bit on what I like and don't like about Situational Leadership on this link. And, under my rant, Hub member Colin has highlighted an example of where the rather rigid categories in situational leadership can get complicated. I'm not knocking situational leadership here, but all of these theories have their limits of usefulness and we have to be aware of them and use them when useful and not stick slavishly to the theories when they are not.
It's all situational
Personally I think it's all situational. You try to understand the situation and respond accordingly. I'd not use the Hersey/Blanchard model blindly, though it's useful as a thinking tool.
:Dave
Situational Leadership
I could not agree more with Phil and David. Every leadership theory out there has its flaws and cannot be held to without exception. I do not think that is the intention of those that formulate these theories. They are to be used as a guide, an attempt to provide a framework in which to lead. I did not intend to imply that situational leadership or any other theory should be followed blindly. It is critical that leaders understand different leadership theories, so that when confronted with leadership challenges we can do our jobs in a more effective manner. Indeed one of the flaws of leaders is to hold too tightly to any one leadership "style" and thus be less effective in their approach to challenges that comes their way.
In many ways the same can be said about the use of power that we as leaders use. French and Raven (1959) postulated that there are 5 types of power that a leader can use. All leaders will likely have one or two primary ways that we use power, but we have to be flexible enough to be able to use every one of these should the need to be used. For example, I use referent power as French and Raven describe it most often. I abhor the use of coercive power. However I have used this type of power as the situation warrants.
Our job as leaders requires us to be flexible and deal with each situation or person that presents us with challenges. One style, one theory, cannot fit all. So while it is important to understand the framework within which lead, we must also be flexible enough to change our style when the situation warrants it. That I think is the beauty of the Situational Leadership model. Not that those 4 boxes hold true all the time, but that we need to be situational in our day to day and strategic leadership roles.
Situational Leadership & the role of leadership theory clarified
models
We find and build mental models in order to help interpret a complex world, and leadership theories are just such things. Models are lenses through which we can look at a situation, and with each lens you see something different. Discussting models helps enrich our understanding of them (which is one reason I really like the Hub!).
Two favourite quotes around this:
'All models are wrong, but some are useful.' -- George Box
'A man with just a hammer begins to see every problem as a nail.' -- Abraham Maslow
--- Dave
another nugget
here here to nuggets (man these titles can get weird)
I heartily agree with this. One of the most eye opening times in my brief, yet quite noisy journey through leadership was when I read a book that compared and contrasted the various leadership theories, models etc.
It allowed me, to use the analogy in discussion at the moment, to develop a set of different lenses, so that I now have a set of metaphorical watchmakers glasses. I also find that I can 1), switch styles a bit easier, since I know that there are different applications, and 2) that sometimes there may not be an answer for a question in one theory, but another has it.
Colin.
Situational Leadership
Re: Situational Leadership
A couple of quotes from my favorite source.
Good judgment comes from experience, experience comes from bad judgment.
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
We read a book about self deception, this would probably help a lot if people want to have some mirror time, but, after a while, it sort of evolves into a transparent barrier, that you can either choose to look through, or choose to move aside (at least it does for me). I am not trying to sell this book, but it did have a visible effect, so, as a compromise, go to the library and ask them to get a copy in. That way it will be available to someone else afterwards.
Colin.
Good judgment comes from
Good judgment comes from experience, experience comes from bad judgment.
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
Uh huh, and ...."Experience is what you get when you are looking for something else" !
fiedler's contingency theory scores
what happens if in fiedler's contingency theory the score is between 64 and 73?