All Leadership is Situational
I was recently asked if the Leadership Spectrum, which I discuss in my seminars, is the same thing as Situational Leadership. For those who have not attended my seminar, I discuss undesirable leadership behaviors at the extremes of a spectrum, such as conflict avoidance and command-and-control. I also discuss more appropriate leadership behaviors towards the center of that spectrum. Because I recommend flexibility on that spectrum depending on the situation, the comparison is natural. However, the two models are not identical.
The Situational Leadership Model was developed by Dr. Paul Hersey and Dr. Ken Blanchard, who collaborated on the book "Situational Leadership." Their fundamental principle is that there is no single "best" style of leadership. They maintain that effective leadership is task-relevant and is dependent on the ability and willingness of the employee. Although I find their model is useful, I also find it a little rigid.
Most Situational Leadership Models are divided into four quadrants (some models use different names to identify the quadrants). The list below is a summary of the four quadrants and when a particular style of leadership under the Situational Leadership Model might be used:
DIRECT:
You provide direction, make decisions, and closely supervise
Use with employees with limited experience or skill
Use with an experienced employee who openly resists
Use when other measures do not produce desired results
COACH
You make decisions, but provide background and context to reinforce buy-in and continued progress
Use to improve employee competence and confidence
Use to persuade (“buy-in”) to help improve performance
SUPPORT
Employee makes decisions with your support to gain mastery of specific tasks
Use with a solid performer who still lacks confidence
Use when a proven performer has lost motivation
Use with a good employee having a bad day
DELEGATE
Employee is trusted enough to make task-related decisions
Can create a sense of empowerment for skilled and motivated employees
Use when the employee consistently demonstrates both willingness and ability
My Leadership Spectrum model is also situational. In my opinion, for certain situations, a leader needs a more assertive approach (without resorting to the extreme of command and control). In other situations, a leader needs to be more compassionate and empathetic or use a two-way communicative approach without resorting to the extreme of conflict avoidance. So, it is situational, but also different. Here is what I consider to be the significant differences:
The Leadership Spectrum model requires you to know yourself. Self-awareness is key to success. You have to be aware enough to know what works and what doesn't. You must understand your personality and preferred communication styles and be willing to step out of your comfort zone (at least temporarily) in certain situations to build trust and earn employee commitment. You need to know yourself to get the best out of your employees, both today and for their future.
The Situational Leadership model requires you to know your employees. It requires an understanding of their ability and their willingness to complete a desired or required task. Even the “Support” and “Coach” quadrants are task-focused, which may, in the long run, be less than ideal for building commitment.
Please understand me, the Situational Leadership model has merit. And it works well in addition to, rather than instead of, my Leadership Spectrum model. Task completion is essential, but so is building trust and long-term employee commitment. That's why it is necessary to know yourself (and what works and what doesn’t) as well as to know your employees and their ability to complete a task.
TIP: All good leadership is situational. You must know yourself (and be able to recognize what works and what doesn't), and you must also understand your employees (their willingness and ability). And it is not always about tasks. Sometimes it’s about building commitment for the future.