Examples of applying Situational and Style Leadership

Approaches.
sites.psu.edu/leadership/2015/02/16/examples-of-applying-situational-and-style-leadership-approaches

Willie Vigil

Applying the Situational Leadership Approach

I work in the accounting field for the Department of Defense and in my office; where there
are five employees and one supervisor.
Understanding Situation Leadership as leadership being composed of both a directive and
a supportive dimension, and that each has to be applied appropriately in a given situation;
we will see how situational leadership should be applied.

Three of the employees in the aforementioned scenario are working at the fourth stage of
development (D4), which is the highest level of development; one can attribute the title of
subject matter experts (SME). These three employees are devoted to the organization and
have proven their professional competencies. Two of the employees operate at the first
stage of development, which is the lowest level of development (D1). These two employees
could be considered new employees.
In an ideal world, the supervisor’s leadership style for the first group of employees would
be that of delegation. This leadership style (S4) is low supportive – low directive style. The
leader would offer very little task input and social support in an effort to boost the
confidence and motivation of the D4 level employee. However, because the employees
may feel they need to maintain their SME status they may not inform or demonstrate to the
supervisor their lack of understanding for a certain procedure they have not fully grasped.
In this case, the leader may continue to adopt the delegation style (S4) when s/he should be
adapting the coaching style (S2) by focusing on communicating goals and meeting the
socioemotional needs.
In the case of D1 level employees; the employees have develop their skills and have moved
from the D1 level to that of a D3 level where they have a moderate level of competency but
lack of commitment. If the leader fails to see tell-tail signs such as that of their growing level
of absenteeism and continues to maintain the S1 leadership style instead of adapting a
high supportive and low directive (S3) approach the leader may lose these employees by
attrition or stagnation.
1/3
In order for the leader to adapt the appropriate leadership style, Northouse advises that
the leader must determine the nature of the situation by asking questions such as: “What
tasks are subordinates being asked to perform? How complex is the task? Are the
subordinates sufficiently skilled to accomplish the task? Do they have the desire to
complete the hob once they start it?” (Northouse. 2013, P 193). Once the leader has
answered these types of questions, s/he can then adapt their leadership style to meet the
needs of the employees thus achieving organizational goals and sustaining a high level of
employee performance.

Applying the Style leadership Approach

In order to understand the style leadership approach I am going to utilize the case study of
Susan Parks (Northouse, 2013, Case Study 4.1, pp 88-89). Parks has fallen into a trap that
many of today’s successful professionals fall into. Susan is a hard working person and
apparently very successful with fifteen percent growth each year in a relatively small college
town. She is well liked by half of her staff and yet the other half appear to spurn her drive
and motivation. It is quite ironic that those that do not appreciate her drive do not
appreciate her because she is someone whom is driven. It is apparent that Susan has
difficulty at living a balanced life; she works hard at work but does not play hard at home.
Although this lesson does not discuss the need for a balance between the professional and
personal, she needs to be aware that some of her employees desire to have that balance.
Her style appears to be work, work and more work. This is apparent in the rumor that “she
eats lunch while standing up.” The impression that this is giving to her employees is that
while at work, that is what they should do, without proper breaks and lunch periods, the
employees will eventually burn out. This would hinder if not hault the fifteen percent
yearly growth, negatively affect the relationships between the employee and clients and
ultimately jeopardize the organization.

In the Ohio State Universities Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ-XII) model
Susan’s leadership, style is that of High Initiation Structure where she is clear with the tasks
and goals she communicates to her employees and Low in Employee Consideration as she
demonstrates by not taking breaks and eating lunch while standing. While in the University

2/3
of Michigan’s model, her behavior can be classified as High production orientation just as in
the previous model Susan is clear with the task and goals and low employee orientation as
evidenced by her skipping breaks and eating lunch while standing. (PSU WC, L.3 P. 3)

In the Blake and Mouton’s model Susan Parks’ leadership style appears to be that of
Authority – Compliance management and in my uneducated opinion at the 9.2 or 9.3 level.
In the Managerial Grid Susan exhibits the Authority-Compliance Style of leadership. She
demonstrates this style as previously stated by placing the emphasis on the tasks and goals
she has set forth for her employees. In so much that, some of her employees may feel
they are only tools in getting the job done at Marathon Sports. Although it is not apparent
that Susan give the impression of being controlling, demanding, and overpowering, it is
clear that her only focus is getting the job done. (Northhouse, 2013) This is demonstrated
in how she makes sure that the tasks and goals for everyone is clear, yet she fails to
interact with them as humans. Although it is important for someone in leadership to
ensure tasks and goals are clear, her style indicates that is all that is important. She rarely
takes breaks and even is rumored to eat standing up. Although this may work well for her,
it is showing her employees that breaks and lunch are merely speed bumps in a workday.

My advice to Susan would be under all three models is to increase her

consideration/concern/orientation for her employees, first by taking the time for breaks
and eating lunch by sitting down and then not only making the tasks and goals clear
(Initiating structure/production orientation/production) to her staff but gradually asking
them about their personal lives. Questions such as the composition of their families. What
do they like to do when they are not at work, what do they like about working at Marathon
Sports. Questions that are not viewed as too personal yet sincerely interested in the overall
well-being of the employee. And although it is not a part of this assignment I would
encourage her to apply the same principles to her personal life. While working fifty hours a
week may be a necessary evil for the organizations success, she also needs to ensure that
her private life is taken care of. The excess hours may result in overtime which facilitate
providing for her children and spouse, she needs to ensure that the physical needs are not
her focus but also the emotional needs of her family. I feel if she finds the balance
between her personal and professional life that both will be just as rewarding and fulfilling.

My though is that work is the means to an end, the money that is provided by my
profession is to make sure that my family is taken care of not only with “things” but also
with a single father that loves and adores them.

References:
Northouse, P. (2013). Introduction. In Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed., pp. 19-
42, 26-39) Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Pennsylvania State World Campus (n.d.). Module 5 4 Style and Situational Approaches
retrieved from
https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp15/psych485/001/content/05_lesson/printlesson.html

3/3