A few weeks ago I got into a conversation about whether situational leadership was more appropriate for top-level or front-line leadership. I argued that situational leadership is most appropriate for front-line leadership. To be more specific, I believe that the front-line is about management and situational leadership is about how to manage, not necessarily lead, teams with diverse backgrounds (Hersey and Blanchard, 1972). This theory states that managers should respond in one of four styles, corresponding to the maturity levels of individuals on the team. In addition, managers should respond different to each individual, since maturity levels are different. Buckingham (2005) differentiated management and leadership by asserting that managers coordinate the strengths of individuals on a team (situational leadership) in order to bring about optimal performance and leaders rallied individuals to work toward a better future. Very little “people rallying” occurs with situational leadership, making it more appropriate to front-line supervisors acting as managers.
Theories such as Charismatic leadership and Transformational leadership appear to be more about rallying followers to better future using motivating factors (Northouse, 2006). These theories seem to be more appropriate for consideration when working with an organization’s top leaders, those concerned with motivating followers toward the future of the organization.
Buckingham, M. (2005) The one thing you need to know: about great managing, great leading and sustained individual success. New York, NY: Free Press
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. (1972). Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources (2nd ed.)New Jersey/Prentice Hall.
Northouse, P. (2006). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
It’s good to see people talking about Situational Leadership again. It was a great breakthrough in making some aspects of management understandable and actionable. As the underlying theory for The One Minute Manager, it’s contributed to the success of many of us over a couple of decades now.
I see it as a way to understand the one-on-one parts of what a manager does. That’s why frontline supervisors do more of it than top-level managers. But both can use it effectively.
Absolutely. OMM did a great job of taking something that Hershey and Blanchard had developed and researched and teaching it to a mass audience. I love them for that.
I agree situational leadership can be used effectively by senior leaders, but it is a one-on-one approach and so is best used by senior leaders on solely their direct reports. Other styles are more beneficial for addressing the entire organization.
Thanks for the comment Wally. Great discussion.
Having moved up the ranks from supervisor to manager to director – from my experience, you are spot on. I can not counterpoint you stance.
First line supervisors/managers have to use situational leadership everyday. This should be one of the first tools they need to put in the toolbox. It helped me more than I realized. As I have moved up, I still use it for individual coaching and mentoring (never goes away). But moving a complete organization – the other styles are more successful.
Steve,
Thanks so much for the comment. It’s reassuring to hear that others have similar experiences to back up this rambling. Thanks again for stopping by.
Hi david,
thanks for the post, it was really an eye opener. I have applied the situational leadership model several times and with some success, but then I found that it fragemented too much, there was a holistic aspect missing and it seemed to overstretch the capacity of leaders to adapt their behavior to the situation.
I found leading through meaning creation somehow more subtle and inclusive, since the narrative apporach would also include differences in adressing or apporacheing “followers”, here the actual particpants in the story.
There is another concept and Mintzberg seconds it, that leadership is community building and I tend to agree: http://wp.me/pXfdq-2J
In any case I am following now, keep up the good work,
Luke
Luke,
Thanks for the contribution. I do think meaning making is a vital aspect of leadership, and vital at all levels. However, I think it is similar to charismatic or transformational leadership….in that it’s more important the higher in a hierarchy you are.