Situational leadership

Situational leadership rejects the idea that one leadership style is universally effective. Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard argued that leaders should adjust their behaviour to the particular task and to the readiness of the person or group responsible for it. Effective leadership is therefore dynamic rather than fixed.

When to use it

Use the model whenever a leader must decide how much direction and support a person or team needs for a defined assignment. Its value lies in prompting deliberate flexibility rather than reliance on a preferred default style.

Capability affects the amount of task guidance required. People who lack the relevant knowledge or experience need clearer instruction about what to do and how to do it; capable performers generally need less. The model originally described this task-specific combination of ability, willingness, responsibility and experience as maturity or readiness.

Commitment affects the amount of relationship support required. People who are uncertain, reluctant or discouraged may benefit from explanation, involvement and encouragement, while confident and committed performers usually require less motivational attention or control. Assess both dimensions for the task at hand rather than labelling someone as generally able, unable, willing or unwilling.

Origins

Hersey and Blanchard first developed the approach in the late nineteen-sixties as the life-cycle theory of leadership while collaborating on Management of Organizational Behavior. They later renamed and extended it as situational leadership. Their work became an influential contingency model because it linked leader behaviour to a follower’s readiness for a particular activity rather than prescribing a single ideal style.

What it is

The model separates leader behaviour into two dimensions. Task behaviour provides structure and direction: defining roles, setting expectations and explaining what, how, when and where work should be done. Relationship behaviour provides socio-emotional support through listening, explaining, encouraging and involving people in decisions. A leader can use either dimension at a high or low level, creating four broad styles.

How to use it

Assess the group and the specific task, then select the combination of direction and support that fits. Reassess as competence or commitment changes.

• Telling – When people are committed but not yet able to perform the task, use strong direction and relatively little support. The leader defines roles and communicates what must be done, how, why, when and where. Communication is largely one-way. Greater emphasis on the work makes the style more directive; attention to the relationship makes it more guiding.
• Selling – When people need both capability and commitment, combine high direction with high support. Explain how to complete the work and why it matters to the individual, team or organisation. Two-way communication and socio-emotional support help people understand and accept the approach. Task emphasis makes the style more persuading, while relationship emphasis makes it more explaining.
• Participating – When people can perform the task but are not fully committed, reduce direction and increase support. Involve them in decisions about how the work will be accomplished, explore obstacles and rebuild motivation. A task emphasis makes the style more problem solving; a relationship emphasis makes it more encouraging.
• Delegating – When people are both capable and committed, use little direction and little support. Place most decisions with the group while the leader facilitates, observes progress and intervenes when necessary. Attention to the task appears as monitoring; attention to the relationship appears as observing.

Final analysis

Situational leadership provides a practical explanation for why leadership behaviour should vary. Its principal difficulty is diagnosis. Capability and commitment are not always easy to assess without bias, and describing a colleague as unwilling or unable can stigmatise them. Readiness also changes by task: a person may be expert and motivated in one area but inexperienced or hesitant in another. Modern teams usually perform several activities simultaneously, which makes one blanket classification misleading and can create inconsistency if neither manager nor team member understands why styles differ.

Apply the model at the level of a specific task, discuss the assessment with the person concerned and revise it as evidence changes. Used this way, the same manager can provide different forms of leadership to the same team without treating the styles as permanent judgements about people.

Top practical tip

Diagnose readiness for one clearly defined task, then agree what direction and support will help the person succeed.

Top pitfall

Do not turn a task-specific judgement into a permanent label. Capability and commitment vary across assignments and over time.

Further reading

Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (2012) Management of Organizational Behavior – Utilizing Human Resources, 10th edn. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.