The
Situational Leadership Theory (SLT) was developed by Paul Hershey and Ken
Blanchard in the 1970’s and is still a highly utilized if
not foundational leadership style. SLT describes how interactions between the
manager and the employee evolve over time as the employee gains knowledge and
experience in their role.
Early
reviewers such as Claude Graeff (1983) criticize the theory nomenclature for
the use of “mature” v. “immature” as a means of
describing per performance manifestations of job-created exposure, experience,
and skill (p. 285). In response, Blanchard, together with Patricia and Drea
Zigarmi (2013) gave the theory a facelift, omitted the diminutive terminology,
and simplified the overall description. The drill down still includes four
distinctive types of leadership style—directing, coaching, supporting, and
delegating—to be used in each situation based on the needs of the employee
(Blanchard, Zigarmi, 2013, p. 52).
The
advantage of this style is in the assumed relationship that will build between
the employee and their manager as the manager fosters the growth and
development of the employees on an individual basis. As an employee shows
growth, the manager will be able to provide additional responsibilities and
freedoms to increase their opportunities to gain knowledge and experience.
However,
there are significant downfalls to this style inherently and if applied inconsistently. First, the theory leaves no instruction to
allow the employee to take part in the decisions regarding their current skill
levels. If the manager does not have the ability to fully assess the status of
the employee in terms of need for support and direction, the employee will not
receive the support or instruction necessary to complete tasks. The employee
must be assessed and reassessed at the advent of each situation, and the theory
does not currently state this. Further, this lack of inclusion may actually
inhibit the relationship building between the manager and the employee and even
create distance between them. There is also no provision for managing a group
of individuals who are working on a like project. This can lead to the high
performers and low performers alike finding difficulty in engaging. Lack of
engagement is a key contributing factor to a decrease in work satisfaction
(Blank, Weitzel, & Green, 1990, p. 593).
Finally,
many tasks require direct supervision based on degree level, training, and
legal mandate. Norris and Vecchio (1992) point out the risk of this leadership
style, particularly when there are a variety of employees with varying levels
of experience from external settings. These individuals all require tailored
relationships with their leaders, and those who oversee a large number of
employees run the risk of fostering only a portion of the employees while
others are without proper guidance and supervision (Norris and Vecchio, 1992,
p. 845).
Overall,
Situational Leadership as a leadership style can be beneficial. Though there is
significant doubt in the usefulness in a general setting, the benefits of the
SLT are best-suited to mentoring and succession planning in a career path among
peers.
References
Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, P., &
Zigarmi, D. (2013). Leadership and the one minute manager: Increasing effectiveness
through situational leadership II. New
York, NY: Harper Collins.
Blank, W., Weitzel, J.R., & Green,
S. G. (1990). A test of the situational
leadership theory.
Personnel Psychology, 43(3),
579-597.
Graeff, C. L. (1983). The situational leadership theory: A critical
view. The Academy of
Management Review, 8(2),
285-291.
Thompson, G., & Vecchio, R.P. (2009). Situational leadership theory: A test of three versions. The Leadership Quarterly,
20, 837-848.
