Situational Leadership
Situational Leadership is a contingency leadership style which was developed during the seventies and is used even now. Situational Leadership utilizes task specificity to serve as a mechanism through which leaders maximize their influence-related impact. It works on the basic principle that all people in a team are not equal in terms of their adaptability, thinking, motivation and working abilities. One team member may need a different leadership approach than the other. Situational Leadership has four categories based on the style a leader uses and is based on the readiness of the follower.
The four styles are Telling or S1, Selling or S2, Participating or S3 and Delegating or S4. The leader actively engages with their followers and identify the follower's readiness and based on their confidence and readiness they are marked from R1 to R4 in terms of ascending order of their readiness.
Style 1 of leader or Readiness 1 of follower is when the follower is new with the work or new to the environment or is very low in confidence. The leader gives straight commands as what needs to be done by the follower. The flow of communication is one way and leader’s only goal is to get job done out of his followers. It can be seen as financial advisor getting strict and straight advice about buying or selling a particular share in the market. The advisor’s job would be just to do the job told by his superiors.
Style 2 of leader or Readiness 2 of follower describes a leadership approach which has high task output and also the relation between the leader and the follower is high. The leader is still deciding the job but is actively tracking the behaviour of the followers and is ready to modify the tasks accordingly. It can be seen like a martial arts teacher who is able to modify his pace of teaching based on the students involvement and commitment. Some students take time in getting their arts right and the teacher decreases the pace of their teaching to achieve the goal.
Style 3 of leader or Readiness 3 of follower is more follower driven and leader takes in followers ideas and opinions before making a decision. The follower is going to decide the course of the path taken for the job to be done and the leader is backing the follower by providing confidence and mental support. Usual round table conferences and SCRUM meetings in office might fall in this category. Each member is the meeting commits for the next two weeks what they can do and what hurdles and obstacles might come in play. Leader tracks the progress and is ready to offer support when the follower is stuck.
Style 4 of leader or Readiness 4 of or a delegating leadership style, is again follower-driven. Here the follower is totally confident and experienced in terms of job and the leader provides an outline of the job and expects the followers to do the job with minimal intervention. This can be seen in service and technical support personnel where the people are independent enough to solve a problem in a remote location without taking much help from their respective superiors. Also in case of research and development where the scientists involved know exactly what to do and leaders have to do very less in terms of job skills or confidence. (Paraphrased from the case study, Situational.com)
Path Goal Leadership
The path-goal theory was first introduced by Martin Evans (1970) and then further developed by House (1971). The theory is another contingency style leadership where leaders’ style would depend heavily on the needs or demands of the particular situation. The leader would employ certain styles of leadership to make sure the followers are able to work and grow in the organization and also fulfill the necessary goals of the organization.
According to the path–goal theory, the leader’s responsibility is to increase subordinates’ motivation and enthusiasm to attain personal and organizational goals and it can be done by either clarifying the follower’s path to the rewards that are available or increasing the rewards that the follower values and desires. (Richard L Daft, 2015) The leader here is expected to be able to increase the enthusiasm and motivation of the followers. The original Path-Goal theory identifies achievement-oriented, directive, participative, and supportive leader behaviors as the four styles.
The directive path-goal style is where the leader is directing the tasks to the followers and expects them to complete it. The leader cannot leave any ambiguity in the task so that when follower does the job fully they are having a satisfaction of completing the job as said by the leader. It shares some similarities with the telling style of situational leadership.
The achievement-oriented leader behavior is more task oriented in the sense that the leaders set the task and goals and expect the followers to achieve them. The leader is confident in the performance of the followers and only tracks them when necessary. This can be seen like a marketing manager setting goals for selling a product each day and expecting their subordinates to sell the products using their experience and skill sets.
The participation leader behavior involves leaders and followers’ equal say in decision making. The follower is highly motivated and enthusiastic of the job in hand and they have more or equal ideas for implementation as the leader. The leader allows the followers to engage in a discussion of sort to arrive in setting a goal for the job. This can be seen in C-suite meetings where all the members have equal say or idea to pitch in.
The supportive leader behavior is more concentrated towards the satisfaction of the follower as compared to the task output. The leader has to make sure that the followers are in turn not stressed by the job goals and instead be more focussed about their well being and emotional stability. This style can be seen in situations involving stressful work conditions like disaster recovery or emergency rescue procedures.
Overcoming obstacles is a special focus of path-goal theory. If an obstacle becomes too strong, then the leader needs to step in and help the employee select a path to work around it. Some of the more difficult task characteristics that often arise are Design of the task or ambiguity of the task, Authority or control of work or task and non supportive workgroup.(Paraphrased NWLink.com)
Similarities and Differences between the leadership styles
Both the leadership styles are very similar. The main focus of the path-goal theory is motivation, what the followers need to complete the task. In contrast, the situational theory is based on the readiness or maturity of the followers. Within each of the two theories there are some similarities. They both have a category in which the leader’s main attention is given to providing directions to get the job done, and a supporting or participating style which fosters team building and encourages followers to participate in the decision making. (Wallen, Oct 2016) In 2019, Erik Fritsvold, PhD at the University of San Diego, cited path-goal leadership as a great model for community policing. Also path goal is high on emotional intelligence whereas the situational leadership is little weak in emotional intelligence.
Working in a creative field where people tend to be highly motivated, skilled, creative, and dedicated to their work can be conducive to obtaining good results with delegative situational style. Both Path-Goal and Situational theory have four styles of leadership but they differ in that Path-Goal focuses on the leader matching the follower and situation. While, situational theory focuses on the follower’s readiness. (Darryl Bachmeier).
Effectiveness of Leadership Styles
Leaders assess the situation and behaviors of the team members in play, after which they determine the type of leadership approach to use to get the best result. (IMD) Some of the concrete examples where situational leadership excelled and boosted the performance of the organization are 1. General George Patton is one of American military’s most revered leaders who had used situational leadership techniques to prepare for action. He focused on analyzing the situation in order to win the war and his core principles of flexibility, co-operation and trust are associated with Situational Leadership. 2. John Wooden, during his time as head coach of UCLA men’s basketball team understood that the team member’s readiness levels changes as and when new players come in and could vary from more mature to the rookies. He adjusted and tweaked his leadership style as change is inevitable and constant analysis is required for success.
3. Royal New Zealand Navy had implemented situation leadership practices to boost the low morale and minimize the issues that were due to new reforms in the organization. The principles of situational leadership improved personal responsibility and focus shifted from simple command structure to leadership structure. (Paraphrased: Martin Leunendonk, July 25 2020)
Path Goal leadership practices are widely used in day to day operations in many organizations. Some examples are 1. In online learning or e-training where the employees are provided with set goals to complete and implement the learning into the work in order to upgrade themselves in ever evolving phase of their career. 2. One of the implementation of Path goal leadership that this author finds as excellent application can be found in a popular Netflix comedy show called Mr. Iglesias in which the teacher Mr. Gabe Iglesias leads a bunch of low confidence and uninterested students towards believing in themselves to achieve higher milestones. The teacher connects with each student in a more personal way and goes out of his own ways to save the kids when the school decides to discontinue those students due to poor grades by doing summer classes to bring them up to pace. The students eventually believe in themselves to go win the quiz against honors students. 3. Another example of Path goal leadership is yearend performance based appraisal and development programs for employees. There is self evaluation, performance review, behavior analysis and rewards in terms of appraisal and promotions which are the core benefits in path goal leadership.
Conclusion
Both the leadership styles are being iterated and used in various business and organizations. Both the leadership styles have their advantages and disadvantages which the leader must understand well in advance before using the style since it affects the organization if the style doesn't suite the business. The Situational style of Leadership is better for any project or team which is not having a short time frame and requires constant analysis and changes to be accommodated. For time framed team the best solution would be to involve path goal leadership to achieve the task and have rewards for the team. The path goal leadership is having emotional values like rewards and recognition of the follower in achieving the goal while situational leadership gives space to the follower and based on their readiness the leader will take their approach to complete the task.
References
Don Clark, Sep 2015, http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/lead_path_goal.html
Darryl Bachmeier, Mar 13, 2019, https://zenbo.com/Path-Goal-versus-Situational- Leadership/
IMD, https://www.imd.org/imd-reflections/leadership-reflections/situational-leadership/
Wallen, Oct 2016, http://wittywithwill.blogspot.com/2016/09/comparison-of-leadership- theories-path.html
Marin Luenendonk, July 25 2020, https://www.cleverism.com/situational-leadership- guide/
NWLink, Path Goal Leadership Theory, http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/lead_path_goal.html
SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP®: RELEVANT THEN, RELEVANT NOW, a case study provided by situational.com www.situational.com/content/uploads/2017/10/FINAL_CLS_History_CaseStudy_- Digital.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment