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 an extensive thirty-five years experience in public
speaking and has spoken to hundreds of audiences worldwide. Greg has a Master
of Arts degree in Leadership from
Bellevue University, where he also has served as an adjunct professor teaching
courses in business management and leadership since 2002. His first book, 52 Leadership Tips
(That Will Change How You Lead Others) was published
in 2006 by WingSpan Press. His second book, Making
Life's Puzzle Pieces Fit was published in March 2009. Both are available at
amazon.com. Greg is also the president of Leadership
Excellence, Ltd and a Managing Partner of the Leadership Management
Institute. Leadership
Excellence, Ltd. effectively builds
individuals and organizations to reach their highest potential through enhanced
productivity and personal development using a number of proven programs. He is also the president and founder
of weLEAD Incorporated.
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