Situational leadership theory

Situational Leadership Theory, or the Situational Leadership Model, is a model created

by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard, developed while working on Management of Organizational
Behavior.[1] The theory was first introduced in 1969 as "life cycle theory of leadership".
[2] During the mid-1970s, life cycle theory of leadership was renamed "Situational Leadership
Theory."[3]

Situational Leadership emerged as one of a related group of two-factor theories of leadership,

many of which originated in research done at Ohio State University in the 1960s. These two-
factor theories hold that possibilities in leadership style are composed of combinations of two
main variables: task behavior and relationship behavior. Various terms are used to describe
these two concepts, such as initiating structure or direction for task behavior and consideration
or socioemotional support for relationship behavior. Related leadership models include Blake
and Mouton's Managerial Grid and Reddin's 3D Theory.

In the late 1970s/early 1980s, Hersey and Blanchard both developed their own slightly divergent
versions of the Situational Leadership Theory: the Situational Leadership Model (Hersey) and
the Situational Leadership II model (Blanchard et al.).[4]

The fundamental principle of the situational leadership model is that there is no single "best"
style of leadership. Effective leadership is task-relevant, and the most successful leaders are
those who adapt their leadership style to the performance readiness (ability and willingness) of
the individual or group they are attempting to lead or influence. Effective leadership varies, not
only with the person or group that is being influenced, but it also depends on the task, job, or
function that needs to be accomplished.[3]

The Situational Leadership Model has two fundamental concepts: leadership style and the
individual or group's performance readiness level, also referred to as maturity level or
development level.
Contents
Leadership stylesEdit
Hersey and Blanchard characterized leadership style in terms of the amount of task
behavior and relationship behavior that the leader provides to their followers. They categorized
all leadership styles into four behavior styles, which they named S1 to S4. The titles for three of
these styles differ depending on which version of the model is used <Yeakey, George, 2000> .

Telling Selling Participating Delegating

Individuals are
Individuals lack the
Individuals are more Individuals are experienced at the task,
specific skills required
able to do the task; experienced and able and comfortable with their
for the job in hand and
however, they are to do the task but lack own ability to do it well.
they are willing to
demotivated for this the confidence or the They are able and willing
work at the task. They
job or task. Unwilling willingness to take on to not only do the task, but
are novice but
to do the task. responsibility. to take responsibility for
enthusiastic.
the task.
Of these, no one style is considered optimal for all leaders to use all the time. Effective leaders
need to be flexible, and must adapt themselves according to the situation.

Maturity levelsEdit

The right leadership style will depend on the person or group being led. The Hersey–Blanchard
situational leadership theory identified four levels of maturity M1 through M4:

High Moderate Low

M4 M3 M2 M1

Very capable and

Capable but unwilling Unable but confident Unable and insecure
confident

Individuals are
experienced at the Individuals lack the
Individuals are Individuals are more
task, and comfortable specific skills required
experienced and able able to do the task;
with their own ability to for the job in hand and
to do the task but lack however, they are
do it well. They are they are willing to work
the confidence or the demotivated for this
able and willing to not at the task. They are
willingness to take on job or task. Unwilling
only do the task, but to novice but
responsibility. to do the task.
take responsibility for enthusiastic.
the task.

Maturity levels are also task-specific. A person might be generally skilled, confident and
motivated in their job, but would still have a maturity level M1 when asked to perform a task
requiring skills they don't possess. Blanchard's Situational Leadership II makes some changes
to these, re-labelling all as development levels rather than maturity levels to avoid stigma
around the idea of immaturity, and making some distinctions in M1 and M2, now D1 and D2 in
this subsequent version.

Developing people and self-motivationEdit

A good leader develops "the competence and commitment of their people so they're self-
motivated rather than dependent on others for direction and guidance."[6] According to Hersey's
book,[6] a leader's high, realistic expectation causes high performance of followers; a leader's
low expectations lead to low performance of followers.
Situational Leadership IIEdit

Hersey and Blanchard continued to iterate on the original theory until 1977 when they mutually
agreed to run their respective companies. In the late 1970s, Hersey changed the name from
"situational leadership theory" to "situational leadership".

In 1979, Ken Blanchard founded Blanchard Training & Development, Inc., (later The Ken
Blanchard Companies) together with his wife Margie Blanchard and a board of founding
 associates. Over time, this group made changes to the concepts of the original situational
leadership theory in several key areas, which included the research base, the leadership style
labels, and the individual's development level continuum.[4]
In 1985 Blanchard introduced situational leadership II (SLII) in the book A Situational Approach
to Managing People. Blanchard and his colleagues continued to iterate and revise A Situational
Approach to Managing People.[4]

Framework of referenceEdit

The situational leadership II (SLII) model acknowledged the existing research of the situational
leadership theory and revised the concepts based on feedback from clients, practicing
managers, and the work of several leading researchers in the field of group development.[4]
The primary sources included:

 Malcolm Knowles' research in the area of adult learning theory and individual development
stages, where he asserted that learning and growth are based on changes in self-concept,
experience, readiness to learn, and orientation to learning.
 Kanfer and Ackerman's study of motivation and cognitive abilities and the difference between
commitment and confidence, task knowledge and transferable skills.[7]

 Bruce Tuckman's research in the field of group development, which compiled the results of 50
studies on group development and identified four stages of development: forming, storming,
norming, and performing. Tuckman's later work identified a fifth stage of development called
"termination". Tuckman found that when individuals are new to the team or task they are
motivated but are usually relatively uninformed of the issues and objectives of the team.
Tuckman felt that in the initial stage (forming) supervisors of the team need to be directive.
Stage two, Storming, is characterized by conflict and polarization around interpersonal issues
and how best to approach the task. These behaviors serve as resistance to group influence and
task requirements and can cause performance to drop. As the team moves through the stages
of development, performance and productivity increase.
 Lacoursiere's research in the 1980s synthesized the findings from 238 groups. Until
Lacoursiere's work in 1980, most research had studied non-work groups; Lacoursiere's work
validated the findings produced by Tuckman in regard to the five stages of group development.
 Susan Wheelan's 10-year study, published in 1990 and titled Creating Effective Teams, which
confirmed the five stages of group development in Tuckman's work.

Development levelsEdit

Blanchard's situational leadership II model uses the terms "competence" (ability, knowledge,
and skill) and "commitment" (confidence and motivation) to describe different levels of
development.[4]
According to Ken Blanchard, "Four combinations of competence and commitment make up what
we call 'development level.'"

 D1 – Low competence with high commitment[4]

 D2 – Low/middling competence with low commitment
 D3 – High competence with low/variable commitment
 D4 – High competence with high commitment

In order to make an effective cycle, a leader needs to motivate followers properly.

The situational leadership II model tends to view development as an evolutionary progression

meaning that when individuals approach a new task for the first time, they start out with little or
no knowledge, ability or skills, but with high enthusiasm, motivation, and commitment.
Blanchard views development as a process as the individual moves from developing to
developed, in this viewpoint it is still incumbent upon the leader to diagnose development level
and then use the appropriate leadership style.

In the Blanchard SLII model, the belief is that an individual comes to a new task or role with low
competence (knowledge and transferable skills) but high commitment. As the individual gains
experience and is appropriately supported and directed by their leader they reach development
level 2 and gain some competence, but their commitment drops because the task may be more
complex than the individual had originally perceived when they began the task. With the
direction and support of their leader, the individual moves to development level 3 where
competence can still be variable—fluctuating between moderate to high knowledge, ability and
transferable skills and variable commitment as they continue to gain mastery of the task or role.
Finally, the individual moves to development level 4 where competence and commitment are
high.

Research on the modelEdit

Despite its intuitive appeal, several studies do not support the prescriptions offered by
situational leadership theory.[8][9] To determine the validity of the prescriptions suggested by
the Hersey and Blanchard approach, Vecchio (1987)[9] conducted a study of more than 300
high school teachers and their principals. He found that newly hired teachers were more
satisfied and performed better under principals who had highly structured leadership styles, but
the performance of more experienced and mature teachers was unrelated to the style their
principals exhibited. In essence, the Vecchio findings suggest that in terms of situational
leadership, it is appropriate to match a highly structured S1 style of leadership with immature
subordinates, but it is not clear (incomplete research) whether it is appropriate to match S2, S3,
or S4, respectively, with more mature subordinates. In a replication study using University
employees, Fernandez and Vecchio (1997)[8] found similar results. Taken together, these
studies fail to support the basic recommendations suggested by the situational leadership
model.

A 2009 study[10] found the 2007 revised theory was a poorer predictor of subordinate
performance and attitudes than the original version from 1972. Survey data collected from 357
banking employees and 80 supervisors, sampled from 10 Norwegian financial institutions, were
analyzed for predicted interactions.