72 Situational Leadership
72 Situational Leadership
72 Situational Leadership
In situational
leadership, the follower
determines the
appropriate leader
behavior. Situational
leadership attempts to
"improve the odds that
managers will be able to
become effective and
successful leaders."38 A
leader's effectiveness
depends on the person's
or group's readiness
level. In the expanded
situational leadership
model, the leader
diagnoses the level of
readiness, adapts the
appropriate high- probability leadership style, and communicates the
style to influence behavior effectively. The leader helps the follower
grow in readiness by adjusting leadership behavior through the four
styles along the leadership curve. The leader accomplishes this growth
in readiness by reinforcing successive approximations of the desired
behavior. The style is appropriate only as far as the followers are
productive. Change may occur in the maturity level of the follower,
new technology may be introduced in the organization, or a structural
change may occur requiring the leader to move backward on the curve
to provide the appropriate level of support and direction.
The leader makes several decisions in determining the appropriate
leadership style. The first is the objective and the individual or group
activities that the leader wants to influence. The next is determining
the group's readiness level, followed by determining the appropriate
leadership style. The leader then assesses results and reassesses the
accomplishment of objectives and determines if further leadership is
indicated. If there is a gap between expected performance and actual
performance, then additional leadership interventions are in order and
the cycle is repeated. Tasks, readiness, and results are dynamic, and
leadership is a fulltime job.
Various groups and organizations have used SLT for more than 25
years. More than one million leaders receive SLT training annually.
Hersey, Blanch-ard, and Johnson use the research of R.A. Gumpert and
R.K. Hambleton as evidence of SLT's effectiveness.39 The results of that
research support the utility of the managerial development theory in
Gumpert and Hambleton's research. Managers trained in SLT do better
under conditions of change than managers who are not.
Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson write that the basic principles of the
model have not changed since the theory's inception in the 1960s, and
there is even greater emphasis recently on the task or the activity the
leader is attempting to impact.40 SLT is not as much about leadership
as about meeting follower needs. This task-specific focus of the model
is the primary reason that the followers' maturity gives way to task the
followers' readiness.
Although the model is still evolving and Hersey and Blanchard
continue to collaborate on refining SLT, they went their separate ways
in 1979. Hersey still calls his model SLT, using the concepts and
descriptors discussed here. Blanchard and his associates call their
version of the model SLTII, and they focus more on developing groups
and teams. Maturity and readiness in SLTII are labeled development
(D1, D2, D3, and D4). Those stages of development are orientation,
dissatisfaction, resolution, and production. Individual growth goes from
the enthusiastic beginner, to the disillusioned learner, to the capable
but cautious performer, and finally to the selfdirected achiever.
Leadership styles, which move the followers from the stages of
developing to developed, are directing (S1); coaching (S2); supporting
(S3); and delegating (S4). The principles of SLT are otherwise used the
same in SLTII.41
Military Applications
Hersey and Blanchard's 1969 theory is practical and easy to
understand, but its widespread use calls for indepth empirical testing
to determine its validity as a tool for leaders to impact an organization
and people in the organization. The theory's principles have been
studied in various organizations, from corporations to schools to
churches, but there is little literature on military use. Using a military
sample to test the theory would extend the body of knowledge on SLT
and leadership research in general and test the model using a different
organization.42
In a recent study conducted in a U.S. Army National Guard air assault
battalion, the premises of the theory were supported although
statistical support of the model's primary assertions were not
supported.43 The study tested Hersey and Blanchard's 1996 SLT in a
military population using the instruments developed for the theory.
This study is significant because it uses the military environment to
test SLT by using a research design that incorporates leadership
effectiveness and adaptability descriptions (LEAD) and readiness scale
instruments originally developed for SLT. The design uses the leader
style/subordinate maturity match, outcome measures of performance,
satisfaction with supervision, and job satisfaction. The military
environment provides a clear delineation of relationships between
subordinate and superior relationships where the superior is
responsible for developing subor-dinate's maturity. The study uses a
360-degree evaluation of the perceptions of leader effectiveness and
provides an organizational leadership effectiveness average or
composite that is correlated with the outcome measures.
Feedback on the leader's effectiveness is provided with self, peer,
and subordinate as well as superior evaluations. The military services
use this type of feedback for leader training in academic settings but
not in the field or fleet.
In a study at the U.S. Naval Academy, anonymous feedback provided
to upperclassmen resulted in lower discrepancies between self-ratings
and subordinate ratings of transformational leadership and has
improved subsequent leader performance.44 Leadership performance is
improved through education and experience. Feedback from followers,
peers, and superiors is important to improve leadership performance.45
Leadership effectiveness and its impact on unit morale and cohesion
are assessed in this study as an outcome measure using a job
description index (JDI) and an organizational climate survey. The Army
does not routinely use climate surveys, although it frequently collects
data on equipment and financial readiness. The absence of a parallel
reporting emphasis on the state of the human element relegates that
aspect of combat readiness to a secondary position.46
The data shows that the outcome measures employed indicate that
the leadership is performing effectively and that satisfaction with
supervision, the job, and the organization is high. Leaders considering
the readiness or maturity level of subordinates are employing the
appropriate leadership style. These trends seem to support SLT, but
statistical tests indicate otherwise. Given leadership effectiveness in
this situation, the leaders are unable to adjust their styles to
developmentally improve the readiness of the unit. The predominant
leadership style in the organization is style 2 (sell). The adaptability
score indicates adaptability of leaders to use situationally appropriate
leadership styles. The adaptability score in this example shows that
leaders in this organization do not vary their style appropriately to the
readiness levels of the follower.
Readiness scores indicate a relatively high readiness among
respondents. The score is above the level of R3, defined as a level
where subordinates are able to complete the tasks but are not willing.
Although the best leader style in this situation is S3 (participate), the
probability of success using style S2 (sell) is high while success with S4
(delegate) is not as high.47 The probability of success using S2 with R3
in this example may explain the positive results of outcome measures.
Performance scores indicate a high level of performance
corresponding to the high level of subordinate readiness. The job in
general (JIG) and the JDI, also employed in this study, indicate high job
satisfaction and satisfaction with leaders. The organizational climate
survey and the strength management and attrition model also indicate
high-profile averages in areas of leadership, to include NCO and officer
leadership, accessibility to leaders, and unit cohesiveness. Time in the
organization, in the same military occupational specialty, and with the
same supervisor contributed to readiness levels and high scores on
satisfaction scales. Respondents were mature and well educated.
Matching subordinate's leadership style with the readiness level the
results in greater leader effectiveness, with a subsequent increase in
the outcome measures of performance and satisfaction.
Correlations and statistical analyses show support for SLT's
interaction between style and readiness match, and performance but
not with results of the JDI or JIG. The findings of this study verify what
C.F. Fernandez and Robert P. Vecchio concluded in their research on
SLT.48 The statistical techniques used offer little supporting evidence for
situational leadership even using LEAD and the readiness scales
designed for situational leadership.
Implications for Leadership Training
FM 22100 states that "effective leaders are flexible enough to adjust
their leadership style and techniques to the people they lead. Some
subordinates respond best to coaxing, suggestions, or gentle prodding;
others need, and even want at times, the verbal equivalent of a kick in
the pants."49 Where leaders use style S2 (sell), subordinates are
involved in decisionmaking to the extent that they provide information
about the decision. The decision is still the leader's; however, even
subordinates' limited involvement in decisionmaking gives them some
ownership in the decision, raising their level of commitment to it. The
S2 style is appropriate for moderately competent subordinates who
support organizational goals. In this example, the respondents'
readiness level is R3 where subordinates are able but not willing. They
have the knowledge and ability to do the task but are reluctant to
complete it on their own, and feedback in task performance is
solicited.50 When the leadership style is nearly optimal, given
subordinates' readiness, a key is how much better the overall outcome
measures would fare if the leader had greater flexibility to change his
style as the situation allows. The change from a more directive style to
one where the subordinates are selfsufficient is the basis of Army
leadership in developing subordinates. FM 22-100 states that "in order
to get their best performance, you must figure out what your
subordinates need and what they are able to do—even when they don't
know themselves."51 The manual goes on to say that "competent
leaders mix elements of all these styles to match to the place, task and
people involved. . . . If you can use only one leadership style, you're
inflexible and will have difficulty operating in situations where that
style doesn't fit."52
To develop subordinates to
become effective leaders and
operate as cohesive teams,
leaders must be adaptable in
their own leadership styles to
move toward participative
leadership, then empower the
subordinate through delegation of authority. The ability to recognize
the importance of the leader being active in developing the
subordinates to an R4 state, where empowerment is practical, is the
utility of the situational leadership model.65
Adding transactional and transformational leadership to directing,
participating, and delegating leadership clarifies SLT in Army
leadership. Transformational leadership is the long-term state of
leadership in Army units where the S4R4 style/readiness match exists.
Transactional leadership is used only short-term in situations where
there is no time to react to other than directive leadership. Examples of
these situations include safety and underfire issues.
Choosing to use directive leadership or delegation involves more
situational factors than the readiness of the subordinates. The
appropriate style changes as the leadership environment changes.
Combat requires more unified and more autocratic leadership. The
interaction between commanders and subordinate leaders is verbal
and informal. On the other hand, the staff leader's style is bureaucratic
and participative, and the interaction between staff members is written
and formal. The level and type of the organization also affect style.
Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson incorporate SLT in crisis leadership
situations such as combat, staff operations management,
transformational leadership, and performance management.66 They
treat these all as situations where the style of leadership is adapted
appropriately for optimal effectiveness. These authors advocate that
the limitations of the model brought out by the military services are
situational opportunities to apply their theory.
Situational leadership is a popular and widely used model that
emphasizes using more than one leadership style, particularly in
developing subordinates in the military. It assumes that as
subordinates gain training, experience, and guidance, they will be
better prepared to accomplish the goals of the organization with less
leader influence. Eventually, the subordinate will be the leader. It is a
complex model with complex variables. Leadership and leader styles
are concepts that defy definition. Follower readiness is a multifaceted
dimension that is difficult to measure. The situational leadership model
continues to be used in the military services as a training vehicle in
virtually all formal leadership training programs.67MR
1.COL Kent E. Erving and LTC David A. Decker, "Adaptive Leaders and
the Interim Brigade Combat Team, Military Review (September-October
2000), 24.
2.US Army Field Manual (FM) 22-100, Army Leadership (Washington,
DC: US Government Printing Office [GPO], 1999).
3.Ibid., 3-19.
4.FM 22-5, Drill and Ceremony (Washington, DC: GPO, 1986).
5.J.W. Anderson, "The Prediction of Combat Effective Leadership,"
University of Washington Dissertation, Dissertation Abstracts
International, 41-5b, 1968-1969.
6.David D. Van Fleet and Gary A. Yukl, Military Leadership: An
Organizational Perspective (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc., 1986).
7.Anderson.
8.N.F. Dixon, "Leaders of Men," In M. Syrett and C. Hogg, Frontiers of
Leadership: An Essential Reader (Okford, UK: Blackwell, 1976).
9.Anderson.
10.Dixon.
11.T.O. Jacobs, "Intro to Section 4," in R. Gal and A.P. Mangelsdorf,
Handbook of Military Psychology (Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons,
Ltd., 1991).
12.Anderson.
13. A. Lau, "Military Leadership," in C. Cronin, Military Psychology: An
Introduction, (Needham, Heights, MA: Simon and Schuster Custom
Publishing, 1998).
14.Jacobs.
15.Walter F. Ulmer, "Military Leadership into the 21st Century: Another
`Bridge Too Far?' " Parameters (Spring 1998), 4.
16.L.E. Atwater and Francis J. Yammarino, Personal Attributes as
Predictors of Superiors' and Subordinates' Perceptions of Military
Academy Leadership, Human Relations (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.,
1993).
17.Lau.
18.Ibid.
19.James G. Hunt and John D. Blair, eds., Leadership on the Future
Battlefield (New York: Pergamon Press Inc., 1985).
20.Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. Blanchard, Management of
Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources (Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969).
21.Anderson, Atwater, and Yammarino; Jacobs; Hunt and Blair; Ulmer.
22.Dixon.
23.Lau.
24.Paul Hersey, Kenneth H. Blanchard, and Dewey Johnson,
Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources,
7th Edition (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1996).
25.Van Fleet and Yukl.
26.Ibid., 61.
27.FM 22-100, Military Leadership (Washington, DC: GPO, 1990).
28.Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (1996), 161.
29.Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. Blanchard, Management of
Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources, 3d Edition
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1977).
30.Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. Blanchard, Management of
Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources, 2d Edition
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1972); Hersey and Blanchard
(1969).
31.Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (1996)
32.Ibid.
33.L.I. Moore, "The FMI: Dimensions of Follower Maturity," Group and
Organizational Studies, Issue 1, 230.
34.Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard, Management of Organizational
Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources, 4th Edition (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall Inc., 1982); P. Hersey and K. Blanchard, Management of
Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources, 6th Edition
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1993); Hersey and Blanchard
(1988).
35.Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (1996).
36.Ibid.
37.Ibid.
38.Ibid., 207.
39.Ibid.; R.A. Gumpert and R.K. Hambleton, "Situational Leadership:
How Xerox Managers Fine-Tune Managerial Style and Task Needs,"
Management Review, Issue 9.
40. Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (1996).
41.Ibid.
42.W. Norris and R. Vecchio, "Situational Leadership Theory: A
Replication," Group and Organization Management, Issue 17, 331-2.
43.George W. Yeakey, "Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Leadership
Theory: Military Applications," Doctoral Dissertation, NOVA
Southeastern University, 2000.
44.Atwater and Yammarino.
45.Lau.
46.Ulmer.
47.Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (1996).
48.C.F. Fernandez and R.P. Vecchio, "Situational Leadership Theory
Revisited: A Test of an Across-Jobs Perspective," Leadership Quarterly,
Issue 8, 67-84.
49.FM 22-100 (1999), 3-15.
50.Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (1996).
51.FM 22-100 (1999), 3-15.
52.Ibid., 3-16.
53.B.R. Cook, "Situational Leadership Styles of Air Force Commanding
Officer," University of La Verne, Doctoral Dissertation, Dissertation
Abstracts International, 53-07A, 2570.
54.FM 22-100 (1990).
55.FM 22-100 (1999).
56.Hersey and Blanchard (1969 and 1974).
57.S.D. Naylor, "Soldiers Blame Low Morale on Poor Leadership," Army
Times, (17 January 2000).
58.MAJ Keith B. Hauk and COL Greg H. Parlier, "Recruiting: Crisis and
Cures," Military Review (May-June 2000), 73.
59.GEN Dennis J. Reimer, "Leadership Doctrine—Turning Challenge into
Opportunity," Military Review (May-June 1999), 3.
60.LTC Donald M. Craig, "Designing a Battalion Leadership
Development Program," Military Review (May-June 1999), 7.
61.Department of the Army Pamphlet 350-58, Leader Development for
America's Army (Washington, DC: GPO, 13 October 1994).
62.COL Maureen K. Leboeuf, "Developing a Leadership Philosophy,"
Military Review (May-June 1999), 28.
63.MAJ John M. Spiszer, "Leadership and Combat Motivation: The
Critical Task," Military Review (May June 1999), 66.
64.Hersey and Blanchard (1988).
65.Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (1996).
66.Ibid.
67.Ibid.
Major George W. Yeakey, U.S. Army, Retired, currently teaches
leadership for the U.S. Army Reserve Officer's Training Corps, Miami,
Florida, and is a management consultant for Odeon Ltd., a
multinational company operating in Poland, Russia, and Turkey. He
received a B.A. from Middle Tennessee State University, an M.A. from
the University of Oklahoma, and a Ph.D. from NOVA Southeastern
University. He is a graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General
Staff College. While on active duty, he served as operations officer,
Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, U.S. Army South and Joint Task
Force Panama, Quarry Heights, Panama; field artillery team chief,
Readiness Group, Fort Bragg, North Carolina; assistant professor,
Behavioral Sciences and Leadership, U.S. Air Force Academy;
organizational effectiveness staff officer, 212th Field Artillery Brigade;
and deputy installation commander, Herzo Artillery Base, Germany.
US Army