weLEAD Online Magazine
leadingtoday.org
Copyright 2001 ã weLEAD,
Inc.
What You Need to Know About “Situational Leadership”!
- One
Leader's Perspective
By Greg L. Thomas
If
you study the subject of leadership at one of our fine educational institutions
or read many books on the subject of leadership, you will eventually come across
the term “contingency theory” or situational leadership.
In the past, most researchers believed in a “one best way” or universal
approach to leadership. Many also held the opinion that leaders were those who
simply had the “right stuff” to lead others. This right stuff was
defined as commitment, strength, vision and often charisma. Of course, one
hundred years ago many assumed that great leaders were simply “born” to lead
and the “right stuff” was unavailable to others! Within the past 40 years, two
avid supporters of the best way theory or universal leadership approach
have been Robert Blake and Jane Moulton. Their books, training programs and
articles have taught that a single leadership style is the right approach
for all situations.
Blake and Moulton created a
two-dimensional “managerial grid” that has become a classic way to diagram the
best way or universal approach model. This grid diagrams two basic dimensions
of an effective leader. They are the concern for results (task)
and concern for people. This managerial grid model has a
numerical rating for each cell depending on the degree or amount of concern a
manager demonstrates for results and for people. These two “concerns”
are considered to be independent of each other. The ideal is considered a
9.9-oriented manager who integrates a high concern for both the
task and people to produce outstanding performance. Apparently, unlike physical
beauty or gymnastic skill, leadership is incapable of achieving a perfect 10!
The original grid concept appeared in 1961 and has been modified into the
1990’s. In a survey performed by the National Industrial Conference Board, this
grid was mentioned as one of the most frequently identified behavioral science
approaches to management.
However,
as other researchers studied farther, a different model was developed that
viewed good leadership as contingent upon the given situation or
environment. The best way or universal model was criticized by those who
recognized that good leadership often adapts with the situation. Widely varying
circumstances typically require different qualities of leadership. These
became known as contingency theories. Two respected researchers by the
names of Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard established a contingency theory
known as situational leadership. They also created a managerial grid
similar to Blake and Molton, since two of its dimensions also included results
(tasks) and people.
Paul Hersey then merged the
relationship between behavior tasks and people into a four-cell chart that reveals
four distinct leadership styles… directing (telling)… coaching
(selling)…supporting (participating) and delegating. Hersey and Blanchard
believe a manager may effectively use any of the four styles depending on the
“readiness level” or “maturity” of the subordinates (Hersey, 1984). For
example, a manager whose subordinates are unable and unwilling to do a good job
would demonstrate leadership by directing (telling) them
what and how to do the task. So according to this theory when the leader is demonstrating
a directing (telling) leadership style, they are providing
high direction and low support.
However,
this contingency theory has also been under assault by researchers. Continued
studies have cast doubts on its validity. As Bolman and Deal point out, “If,
for example, managers give unwilling and unable subordinates high direction and
low support, what would cause their motivation to improve?” Other problems with
this theory include no task structure variables. Also, the concept of follower
“maturity” is not well defined and is therefore open to interpretation. Many
other contingency theories have arisen and all have supporters and detractors
about either the relevance or quality of research associated with them.
Leadership thinker James O’Toole opines, “Yet, evidence mounts that
contingency, or situational, leadership is ineffective. All around we see the
signs of failure: the depressing social and organizational indicators that
point to the inability of leaders to bring about constructive change.” So the
debate continues regarding the “best way theory” and various “contingency”
theories. There is also presently a global leadership (GLOBE) project in
progress since 1993. It involves a sampling of over 15,000 leaders from 779
organizations in 62 various cultures from around the globe. It enlists the help
of 170 co-investigators to help in the research. The goal of the project is to
find out what really makes for effective leadership. http://mgmt3.ucalgary.ca/web/globe.nsf/pages/publications
It
is for these reasons that Bolman and Deal offer yet a different approach to
leadership they call reframing leadership. They offer four images
of leadership that include structural, human resource, political and symbolic
viewpoints. Each of these images potentially extend effective or
ineffective leadership styles! They believe that “each of the frames offers a
distinctive image of the leadership process. Depending on leader and circumstance,
each can lead to compelling and constructive leadership, but none is right for
all times and seasons.”
So what is the conclusion? Is there
a universal or one best way approach to leadership? Or is the
best approach contingent upon the present situation? I am afraid that
like most areas of leadership research, this subject will be open to debate and
confusion for some time to come. This is just one example of why many people
find the subject of leadership a complex and perplexing study. Sometimes it is
hard to get most researchers to agree to a definition of what “leadership”
actually is! But we should not allow the confusion and inconclusive research to
frustrate us in our attempt to practice it in our daily lives.
Regarding
the “one best way” or universal theory verses the contingency theories;
we need to understand a basic truth. Yes, leadership does require different
approaches and methods for different situations. We must resist the temptation
to view leadership in a narrow and oversimplified way. Allow me to provide some
examples. A leader may need to use a different set of skills to motivate
individuals who have “tenure” or are protected by a union in contrast to
temporary or part time employees. Often leaders may use different traits when
working in the private sector when compared to the public sector. The
leadership skills needed to motivate followers who are unskilled and alienated
are different than for a group who are highly skilled and deeply
motivated. Because of cultural differences, the role of police chief may
require different leadership skills in the United States than in China.
Exhibiting leadership to a group of executives is often different than leading
the mailroom staff. Recently I had a conversation with a prominent social advocate
and political leader in the state of New Jersey. She told me one of the most
difficult tasks she has ever encountered was to attempt to build a
consensus among a room full of other influential leaders and executives. This
situation called upon her to use a unique set of leadership skills since they all
wanted to be the most influential and to lead!
However, situational leadership has
too often been used as an excuse for situation ethics. Some high-powered managers
who have been given appropriate nicknames such as “chainsaw” or “the hatchet”
have used the premise of situational leadership or contingency
theory as an excuse for instant disposal of workers due to “losses” or an
“economic downturn”. Yes, I realize and
accept that there are times when the workforce absolutely must be reduced.
Unfortunately the cycle of growth and contraction are part of the economic
system we have in the western world. The question is how this
worker reduction is accomplished and how these individuals are treated. Many of
these workers were highly committed people who did everything that was asked of
them! Some have worked for decades under one new CEO after another, who
immediately incorporated their own new “priority of the month club”. Many of
these people endured years of personal career sacrifice and additional workload
only to be disposed of when “chainsaw” decided to let another group of
“unessential” personnel go! Perhaps what is most pathetic is what occurs when
the myopic corporate board finally decides its time to let “chainsaw” go
because he or she has devastated the once proud organization and its culture.
It is usually done with a million-dollar “severance agreement” and a plaque for
appreciation of “dedicated” service.
Does
the “one best way” or universal approach have any application? It absolutely
does and this question brings us to an important subject regarding truly
effective leadership. Researcher Gary Yukl makes the following comment about
the “one best way” or universal model created by Blake and Mouton. He states,
“The universal feature of their theory is the value orientation used by a
high-high manager to select appropriate behavior, not a particular pattern of
high-high behavior that is applied automatically in all situations.” Yukl is correctly stating here that he
believes the universal aspect of Blake and Moulton’s theory relates to the values
behavior of the leader and not necessarily to the skills or traits a leader may
use. There is always a best way to treat people under any circumstance. That is
with respect, fairness and dignity.
For
example, even if you must reprimand or correct an indignant worker you can do
it privately and respectfully. There is always a “best way” to handle a
coworker if they are being “let go” due to poor economic circumstances or even
incompetence. That is with compassion and a sincere interest in their future.
Even if you must change an existing culture or ask others to sacrifice
important gains, you can do it with a deep sense of appreciation for their past
efforts and commitment to the organization. In the same vein, the “best way” is
to always encourage and motivate others from the heart whether
they are able, unable, willing or unwilling to do a task! The same thing applies
to learning. The best way for a leader to encourage a “learning organization”
is to promote the value of knowledge and reward learning in any situation or
environment. Yes, some leadership behaviors are universal because they are
built upon an ethical foundation of respect and high regard for people! Why are
these values universal? Because smart leaders know that people are their
greatest natural resource and people treated with dignity, care and genuine
concern are the most productive. People who are properly motivated, encouraged,
trained and appreciated will far out perform others who are disrespected,
discouraged, neglected or abused. In the 21st century, this
is the competitive edge.
In conclusion, the “best way” or
universal aspect of leadership theory is valid in regards to right values and
ethics. People should never be viewed as disposable or unimportant. An
effective leader must treat all employees or followers with the heartfelt
values reflected in the “golden rule”, including respect, dignity and a genuine
concern for the individual. This requires an investment in time and
resources, even if they are limited. But this is an investment in your most
powerful asset…your people! Do it right and it pays large dividends by
engendering a healthy culture, increased productivity and higher levels of
commitment.
Conversely,
leadership does require different approaches, methods, skills and tasks for
different situations. We must resist the temptation to view leadership in a
narrow and oversimplified way. Yes, these approaches, skills and tasks are
indeed contingent upon the present situation the leader experiences.
But, understanding this legitimate need for situational leadership should never
be used as a motive or excuse to mistreat or casually discard other people.
Today organizations must exist to serve their stakeholders, and that not
only includes their customers, but also their employees. Any organization today
that doesn’t get this essential point may ultimately have their product or
service displayed in the Smithsonian Institute…right next to buggy whip
manufacturers!
Comments
to: gthomas@leadingtoday.org
BACK TO weLEAD HOME PAGE
About
the author:
Greg has over 25
years of sales and marketing experience within the electrical manufacturing
industry. Some of his positions have included being a National Sales Manager,
National Marketing Manager and Regional Sales Manager. He also has an extensive 35 years experience
in public speaking and has written articles for various publications. Greg has
a Master of Arts degree in Leadership from Bellevue University, where he has
served as an adjunct professor. He is the founder of weLEAD Incorporated, a nonprofit
organization chartered to promote personal and organizational leadership. Greg's personal site is located at http://www.greglthomas.info
References:
Blake, R.
and Mouton, J.S., (1969) Building a Dynamic Corporation Through Grid
Organizational Development.
Reading:
Mass., Addison-Wesley
Blake, R
and Mouton, J.S, (1985) Managerial Grid III. Houston, Tx., Gulf
Bolman, L.
and Deal, T., (1977) Reframing Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers
Hersey, P.
and Blanchard, K.H., (1977) The Management of Organizational Behavior (3rd
ed.), Upper Saddle River:
N.J.,
Prentice Hall
O’Toole, J.
(1995) Leading Change – Overcoming the Ideology of Comfort and the Tyranny
of Custom
San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers
Yukl, G.
(1998) Leadership in Organizations (4th ed.), Upper Saddle River:
N.J., Prentice Hall
http://cbae.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching/338/situation_and_contingency.htm