Gerald Thompson

OMDE604/Spring, 2003

The Management of DE 2: Leadership in DE

Management Theorist Paper, February 22, 2003

Kenneth Blanchard and the Situational Leadership Model (STL)

Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard first put forth their theory of Situational Leadership in 1969. STL is predicated on the concept that leaders will be more effective; if they tailor their style of leadership to best match the situation and capability of their followers.

The four leadership styles are:

· “S1 -Telling (high task-low relationship): The leader defines roles and tells people what, how, when, and where to do various tasks.

· S2 - Selling (high task-high relationship): The leader provides both directive and supportive behavior.

· S3 - Participating (low-task-high relationship): The leader and follower share in decision-making: the main role of the leader is facilitating and communicating.

· S4 - Delegating (low task-low relationship): The leader provides little direction or support (Robbins & Coulter, 2002).”

Adapted from Figure 11.5 The Hersey-Blanchard Model (Schermerhon & Chappell, 2000)

Some view this leader-follower relationship as similar to that between a parent and their children. The parent strives to raise a child that can become mature adults able to function on their own. According to Hersey and Blanchard, it simply means that one’s style should overtime evolve moving toward delegation (Waddell, Fall 1994).

Problems with the Theory

· 400 of the Fortune 500 companies incorporate Situational Learning in their training programs, and over a million supervisors and managers are given STL training each year; yet no one seems able to validate its usefulness (Fernandez & Vecchio, 1997).

· Attempts to test STL by looking at suggested leadership style and actual employees resulted in few matches (Graeff, 1997).

· “Consistency problems continue to plague all versions of Situational Leadership (Graeff, 1997).”

· In 1979, Hersey-Blanchard split over the best way to refine and improve the theory. In 1985, Blanchard came out with Situational Leadership II; said revision highlights how difficult it is to match leadership style to an employee needs; when even the developers of the theory cannot agree.

Leadership Styles

· S1 - Telling becomes Directing.

· S2 - Selling becomes Coaching.

· S3 – Participating becomes Supporting.

· S4- Delegating stays Delegating.

Follower Readiness becomes Development Levels of Follower(s)

Follower Readiness	Development Level of Follower(s)
R1-Unable & Unwilling or insecure	D1-Low Competence/High Commitment
R2- Unable but willing or confident	D2-Some to Low Competence/Low Commitment
R3-Able but unwilling or insecure	D3-Moderate to High Competence/Variable Commitment
R4-Able and willing or confident	D4-High Competence/High Commitment

(Schermerhon & Chappell, 2000)

Adapted from figures in Situational Leadership II (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 1985).

Final Thoughts

It seems clear that there are Situational Leaders (Gen. Eisenhower during WWII) and Leaders for a Situation (Gen. Patton, WWII). Not everyone can amend their style of leadership and so they surround themselves with people who can accept and work within their leadership style (Coach Bobby Knight).

For STL to work the leader has to have the capacity, capability and desire to lead with various styles and must have the ability to be execute each style well or they could be less effective than having just one style and having the follower adapt to them.

The Army considers the number one problem with STL to be when a leader incorrectly judges the motivation of the follower (Yeakey, January-February 2002). If the leader feels the person is “Capable but unwilling” when in fact the person is “Willing but lacks ability or competence” leadership will apply the wrong leadership style.

Being aware of the various leadership styles and their merits can help managers when they create teams and pick team leaders. Just the knowledge of STL and the different styles of leadership and levels of development, can be a bridge of communication and understanding when providing training and resolving conflicts and misunderstandings.

The best leaders and teachers have always practiced a form of STL. Every time a teacher takes a student aside to offer help, they are matching need to the situation. Every time a leader gives one person a “free hand” and another “detailed instruction”, they are applying STL principles without realizing it.

In Distance Education, giving more guidance, support or less when needed is Situation Leadership in action. Every time, a course pace is slowed or increased, STL is being used. Being aware that people are different, with difficult skills and capability is the most important insight, STL brings to all of us. In the end it is not “how effective” STL is, but the simple fact that each leader can be more effective when they match as best they can their style to the situation at hand.

References:

Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, P., & Zigarmi, D. (1985). Leadership and the One Minute Manager: Increasing Effectiveness Through Situational Leadership. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.

Fernandez, C. F., & Vecchio, R. (1997). Situational Leadership Theory revisited: A Test of an across-jobs perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 8(1), p 67.

Graeff, C. L. (1997). Evolution of Situational Leadership Theory: A critical review. Leadership Quarterly, 8(2), p 153.

Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2002). Management (Seventh Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Schermerhon, J. R., & Chappell, D. S. (2000). Introducing... Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Waddell, D. E. (Fall 1994). A Situational Leadership Model for Military Leaders. Aerospace Power Journal. Retrieved February 17, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj94/waddell.html

Yeakey, G. W. (January-February 2002). 72 Situational Leadership. Military Review: Command & General Staff College. Retrieved February 17, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www-cgsc.army.mil/milrev/english/JanFeb02/yeakley.asp