It is an
axiomatic fact that the way leaders make decisions, behave and lead in the
workplace has a powerful impact on employee engagement, motivation and
ultimately retention. Leadership, by common consent, also considerably exerts a
tremendous influence on business performance. The style leaders adopt to manage
their teams should be hence regarded as a business issue, rather than as an HR whim;
an organizational subject which HR, as it occurs in every people-related
matter, should take charge of.
Albeit countless
definitions of leadership have been provided over the years, the number of approaches
developed to effectively and consistently manage it has been considerably smaller
to date. Based on the findings of a number of studies conducted between 1911
and 1966, and on the widely-held belief that each individual is different from
others, Hersey and Blanchard developed, in the late 1960s, the Situational
Leadership model, also known as “organized common sense” (Leadership Studies,
2017). A flexible framework whose main aim is enable leaders to influence
individual behaviour and motivate their followers, adopting a different
approach according to each individual level of “performance readiness.”
The
underpinning tenet, at the basis of the development of this framework, is that it
does not indeed exist a wrong leadership style in that the right style, or
rather, the most suitable approach, actually depends on the circumstances. Also
in leadership thus the one size does not fit all. The model intends to help
leaders assess every occurrence so as to identify the specific, proper amount
of guidance to give each of their followers and of communication to establish
with each of them, according to their “performance readiness”, that is, the combination
of capability, eagerness and keenness expressed by each individual, under the
specific environmental circumstances. The approach a leader must adopt should be
hence matched up with each individual development level (Table 1).
Table 1
This simple
framework, essentially based on common sense, may appear extremely
straightforward to apply and implement, but it actually requires leaders’
constant, careful attention.
The first
pitfall leaders should definitely avoid to fall into is thinking to well know
each member of their team and regard their level of performance readiness as
invariably the same, regardless of the specific assignment or task they intend
to assign them.
One of the
most crucial phases for the identification of the suitable leadership style is
“diagnosing.” This step is concerned with the assessment of the competencies an
individual has already gained and his/her likely commitment to achieve that
specific objective. Leaders should not be hence influenced by the level of commitment
shown by their followers under other circumstances or by their skills at large,
but focus on the competencies and eagerness these may have to perform that
specific activity. Diagnosing is hence not about an overall assessment; it aims
at determining an individual fit for a specific task.
The adoption
of this approach may lead leaders to believe that they can assign an individual
a project only and only whether this has already successfully managed and
gained previous experience with similar projects. In this way, nevertheless, leaders
would jeopardize individual growth and development, and would not put
themselves in a position to assess their followers learning agility.
Diagnosing
should not be used to prevent individual growth but to favour and sustain it
over time. Understanding what a team member needs to properly perform a task or
effectually contribute to a project, is necessary to make decisions on the type
of support, guidance and direction an individual needs so as to take appropriate
action to bridge the identified gap.
The pace
change occurs nowadays is increasingly quickening and more often than not
organizations and their leaders are prompted to take action as swiftly as they
can. The fact an individual has not gained yet the full set of competencies
this needs to carry out a given task, regardless of his/her eagerness and
motivation to perform it, may prompt a leader to assign the activity to a
different individual, who already has what it takes to effectually perform the
task. Yet by reason of the lack of time to direct, support or coach their
followers and of the typically strict projects timeline, leaders may find it
preferable to assigning challenging tasks to more experienced individuals. Such
an arguably justified leader behaviour, under the circumstances, would
nonetheless fetter rather than favour individual growth. Worse still, whether a
leader should not timely plan for their followers to gain the skills and
experience necessary to properly perform more challenging tasks, before these have
the chance to use these skills in a project, individuals would never be put in
a position to develop, and will thus inexorably leave the organization, not to
mention that they may stay and underperform.
Serious
problems may also arise when leaders consider to assign a follower a project or
task based on their willingness to perform it. A leader can ill afford to
assign a follower a task only and only whether this is keen and eager to
perform it. Genuine leaders should be able to motivate their followers to carry
out tasks these may not be completely happy to perform, but that are important
for the organization success. Henry S.
Truman (US President 1945 – 1953) defined leadership as the “ability to get
others to do what they don’t want to do and like it.” Good leaders should be
able to provide their followers a clear-sighted vision of their company’s and
of their own future, but also enthusiasm and sense of belonging so as to
self-motivation and self-fulfilment to build up. Whether individuals have the
competencies and skills to perform a task, conceivably just because their employer
has heavily invested in their development and banks on them, leaders cannot fail
to influence and persuade their followers of the importance of their contribution.
It is hardly thinkable the paradigm “no willingness, no task performed.”
There are
indeed some additional risks associated with an inappropriate, rigid
implementation of Situational Leadership. If leaders do not adopt it adding a
further degree of flexibility, that is to say without adding flexibility to
flexibility, these may hamper their followers learning agility and by showing a
high degree of intolerance towards failure, prevent innovation to spread and
flourish within the organization.
Whether
leaders have no time to provide their followers the direction, support and coaching
they need, and would be willing to assign individuals only the tasks these are
confidently able to face, they will never be able to identify and sustain their
learning agility level and development. In turn, individuals for fear of
disappointing their leader by making mistakes, would invariably avert to
innovate and change methods, processes and procedures, albeit this may be one
of the objectives Situational Leadership would actually aim at achieving.
As Hamlet
said (Act 5, Scene 2), referring to well different circumstances, “the
readiness is all”, but readiness should be properly and consistently assessed. It
is not only a matter of properly interpreting what should be meant by readiness
from the leader point of view, but also to ascertain whether leader and
follower agree on it. The risk being that rather than favouring people
development and sustaining the pursuance of organizational strategy, Situational
Leadership may cause some undesirable drawbacks and counter-effects.
Diagnosing
is unquestionably a crucial stage of Situational Leadership implementation;
leaders should invariably ensure to discuss openly and thoroughly with their
followers their level of development and readiness to take a new challenge up.
Whether followers
should disagree with their leaders on their readiness level, consequences can prove
to be particularly detrimental. If followers, differently from their leaders,
believe to be ready to perform a task, the circumstance their leader would not assign
them that task would generate disappointment, distrust, dissatisfaction and a
plunge in self-confidence. In the case of leaders overestimating their
followers level of readiness, deeming their followers ready to face the new
challenge, whereas these do not actually feel to be, the fact followers would not
recognize to be unprepared so as not to disappoint their leader, is likely to
produce negative effects upon both the successful completion of the project and
the individual career.
The
practical implementation of Situational Leadership should be hence preceded by the
introduction of an objective, agreed “readiness” assessment method and some tailored
tools. Both leaders and followers should be made aware of the procedure,
variables and assessment methods used to identify each individual readiness
level. A transparent, objectively supportable approach and a structured
methodology would definitely ensure leaders avoid bias and enable them to
properly assess their followers’ skills, based on specific values and
competencies. A transparent method would also reassure followers that their
level of readiness will be assessed objectively and consistently across the
organization.
Despite the Situational
Leadership model only refers to followers’ readiness, it may be argued that the
difficult execution of this approach and the thorny issues it involves imply a
high level of leaders’ readiness, too. Like their followers, leaders should
indeed be eager and prepared to, and skilled at adopting this approach. The
inconsistent, inappropriate implementation of Situational Leadership can in
fact break rather than make employee engagement and performance, and hence organizational
success. Employers aiming at introducing this approach should be aware of the
drawbacks and threats it can potentially pose.
Situational
Leadership can be regarded as an organization strategy to leadership, as such
implementation may prove to be much more important than strategy itself. The
distinctive features of Situational Leadership: flexibility, simplicity and the
case-by-case consideration of individual development, account for this model to
be relevant and useful. On the flip side, it does not appear to be far-sighted
and neglects some significant factors which deserve more attention and
consideration. It can be thus regarded as a basic, broad framework; to be
implemented, nonetheless, the model should be complemented with several activities,
tools and assessment methods, which may in some ways alter the model itself.
The
conscious decision to adopt a specific leadership style, cannot be made
disregarding the values and beliefs underpinning an organization culture.
Whether
corporate culture should foster individual development, innovation and learning
agility, for instance, situational leadership might be deemed by staff as inconsistent
and unfit. Individual development would be only secured to those employees who
have already gained a certain level of autonomy and expertise. Projects and significant
tasks would be assigned to a limited number of individuals, whereas the others
would be basically refused access to the opportunities enabling them to broaden
their experience and reach higher level of competence. Not be put in a position
to grow and develop, these individuals would consequently feel their job to
essentially be a dead-end job and will either underperform or leave their employer.
Ensure the cultural fit of a leadership approach is hence of paramount
importance.
The concept
of employee “readiness” is indeed very interesting, but more than a leadership
style, it may show to better suit people development and succession planning practices.
Whether employers identify the set of skills individuals should master, and the
type of experience they must gain, to fill leadership and key roles within their
organization, being able to assess individual readiness to fill those positions,
would clearly enable them to confidently face the future organizational
challenges.
Employee
readiness should not represent the end itself, but the means to an end. Once
employees have reached the professional and moral standards required by the
organization to take up any given position, also by virtue of their learning
agility, these should be able to confidently face all the challenges posed by
these roles.
Individual
readiness to fill leadership and key roles within an organization should
clearly be professionally assessed adopting tried and tested, trusted
methodologies and not exclusively relying on the leaders’ assessment of their
followers.
Whereas it
is broadly recognized that one of the distinctive characteristics of
Situational Leadership is flexibility, its strict implementation may turn this
approach into an extremely rigid one. The idea of “readiness” should be
therefore interpreted with extreme care and regarded as a method to assess
individual development in a much far-sighted, pragmatic fashion; not to make short-term
decisions, but to make informed choices enabling employers to reap the benefits
and attain tangible results both presently and in the future.
Longo, R., (2019), How Situational is Situational Leadership?; Milan: HR Professionals
[online].
