Situational leadership theory

Situational Leadership is a group of Kontingenztheorien, stating that the supervisor depending on the situation to select different leadership styles to be successful.

Development of situational theories

While universal leadership theories assume that certain behaviors or personality traits - such as charisma - in principle lead to success, say so-called Kontingenztheorien ( Situational Leadership ) that leadership success is also dependent on the environment in which the manager and his staff each. located One of the first theories of this kind comes from Fiedler in 1967 after his conviction of leadership success - measured as the power of the guided group - not only from the management style, but also by the following factors.:

  • Personal relationship between the supervisor and his staff ( the led )
  • Task structure (eg, difficulty)
  • Position power of the superiors

Depending on the nature of these factors, another leadership behavior is required. As this behavior should actually look like, describes the theory advanced by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard in 1977, which even today is still one of the most popular models. On the popularity can be seen from the fact conclude that the input of the code " Situational Leadership " in various search engines results on the Internet about 40,000 hits - a reason to take a closer look of this concept. Figure 1 summarizes the most important aspects of the entire article together.

Situational Leadership by Hersey and Blanchard

Hersey and Blanchard distinguish between a more task-oriented and a more personal style of leadership. Depending on the " maturity " of the guided employees is a different behavior of superiors promising. These basic concepts have been defined by Hersey and Blanchard as follows:

  • Task orientation states that the supervisor prefers to give detailed instructions, he formulated clear expectations and requirements in terms of what and by when must be as complete.
  • In the case of the relationship orientation of the supervisor attaches great importance to good personal contacts, he offers support, praises and encourages its employees.
  • In both orientations, there is a continuum with the two poles of " task orientation " and " relationship orientation " (see Figure 2).
  • The maturity level of employees has two aspects: an objective and a psychological. In material terms, "mature" employees strive for responsibility; they develop their own skills and expertise. In psychological terms "mature" employees want to achieve something, they are motivated and engaged.
  • The maturity level is always tied to specific tasks. This means that one of your people in the task of A ( for example, sell ) can demonstrate a high level of maturity, while he ( organizing processes ) in another task B may have a much lower maturity.
  • Leadership success Hersey and Blanchard define as goal achievement and influence, in which the employees perform a specific job. Furthermore, they respect their superiors and are willing to cooperate. This effectiveness is achieved when the elected leadership style to the maturity level of the employees out fits.

Starting from these basic concepts can be prepared by Hersey and Blanchard four key behaviors as recommendations for supervisors can be derived ( see Figure 2).

  • Leadership 1: At a low maturity of the employees a high task orientation is recommended in conjunction with low relationship orientation. In other words, the supervisor should instruct ( " telling" ).
  • Management style 2: If the employee has developed ( low to moderate maturity), it is recommended that if the supervisor applies a strong employee-related and task-oriented leadership style at the same time. It is important to convince the employees (" selling" ).
  • Leadership style 3: For moderate to high maturity of his employee, the supervisor should highly employee oriented and less task-oriented at the same time lead and they contribute to the objectives or decisions ( " Participating ").
  • Leadership style 4: Very "mature" people do not need a special attention by the supervisor, nor do you need them detailed instructions regarding their duties and their behavior to make. In this case, you should delegate responsibility ( " delegating ").

Result: Successful managers are those that apply the appropriate leadership style depending on the situation.

Critical Appraisal

Even those theories that claim to want to give useful recommendations for the practice shall demonstrate its validity as an essential criterion. In the case of the theory of situational leadership by Hersey and Blanchard numerous criticisms have been discussed in the scientific literature. These can be divided on the subject of empirical validity in a group on conceptual or construct validity and a group of statements. Barry - Craig Johansen comes in his meta- study found that it was many studies have failed to demonstrate the validity of this theory. This concerns the conceptual, instrumental and performance-based ( predictive ) validity. It follows: "Leaders who expect the theory to Provide clear direction for dealing with subordinates will be disappointed ... and it is impossible at present to deterministic mine Whether seeking workout (based on this theory, author) is valuable. "

The core problem is that central basic concepts of the theory are formulated so that you can not measure it or operationalize and thus check not empirically. This applies to the task and relationship orientation, leadership success and the maturity of the employees. To overcome these problems Warren Blank, John Weitzel and Stephen Green have performed in the Midwestern United States, an empirical study with 353 employees and 27 managers from two universities. The relationship and employee-oriented behavior was operationalized using the Leader Behavior Descriptive Questionnaire. For valid and reliable assessment of the maturity level of employees, the authors have a separate study conducted at the respondents were asked to indicate on a scale how you should assess ( professional experience) of randomly selected employees the autonomy, the responsibility, achievement motivation and competence. The operationalization of the concept of performance finally took place on the basis of an evaluation of annual performance reviews as part of the employee interviews. These operationalizations were necessary to test the central assertions (hypotheses) of the theory of situational leadership. Here are some examples:

  • At a low maturity level of staff task-oriented behavior of superiors will lead to better performance.
  • Relationship -oriented behavior of superiors will increase at an average maturity of the performance.
  • The performance and employee satisfaction will increase if the supervisor chooses a leadership style that matches the respective maturity level of followers.

The results of this extensive study, the authors comment as follows: "These results reveal a lack of support for the basic assumptions underlie did SLT. In only one case, psychological maturity and task behavior, did to interaction of leader behavior and subordinate maturity predict subordinate outcomes, ie, work satisfaction. Given the rather extensive Analyses, 12 regression models repeated for two different partitions of the data, thesis findings do not bolster our confidence in the assumptions did underlie the predictions of SLT. This is disappointing Because of the intuitive appeal of the theory. "

Conclusion

The proven by empirical studies lack validity of the original theory of Hersey and Blanchard and the failed attempt to overcome the criticized shortcomings mean that this theory is not able to meet the demand raised, to make concrete proposals on how an executive ability to deliver successful (for understanding: Examples of non- valid "theories" are horoscopes or truisms ). Further validation studies on this theory can not be found in the literature. Recent research focuses firstly on the model of transformational leadership and, secondly, pragmatic, focused on the strategy of each Organisatione leadership skills. For this trend to move away from the search for "optimal" or part of " promising " leadership styles or personality traits. That should be a major reason that there are no other validation studies for the theory of situational leadership. On the same conclusion reached by Gary Yukl: "The model lacks a clear explanation of the process by Which leader behavior Influences subordinate performance ... Leadership behavior is not defined in a clear and consistent way ... the theory fails to Consider other situational variables did are important ... there was little evidence did using the contingent pattern of task and relations behavior Prescribed by the theory wants to make leaders more effective ... Conceptual weaknesses limit the utility of situational leadership theory and help to explain the lack of support for it in the research. " A merit of the theory of Hersey and Blanchard is to have pointed out that it was important " ... to treat different subordinates differently ... "

A new critical review of practicality (validity ) of different ( improved ) versions of this model from 2009 concludes: " ... it is difficult to endorse the use of the model in leadership workout programs ... it does not have Sufficient empirical grounding in its original, 1972 version or its more recent, 2007 revised statement ... in the absence of more substantial research findings ... Those who instruct others within leadership workout programs shoulderstand, as a matter of professional honesty, Their advise trainers did SLT ( Situational Leadership Theory, dV ) quiet lacks a strong empirical grounding, and did its alluring character shoulderstand not substitute for the absence of empirical substantiation. "

Fred Fiedler
732520
de