Situational leadership

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The articles situational leadership and contingency theory (leadership theory) overlap thematically. Help me to better differentiate or merge the articles (→  instructions ) . To do this, take part in the relevant redundancy discussion . Please remove this module only after the redundancy has been completely processed and do not forget to include the relevant entry on the redundancy discussion page{{ Done | 1 = ~~~~}}to mark. Yotwen ( discussion ) 5:00 p.m. , May 29, 2018 (CEST)

Situational leadership describes groups of contingency theories that state that the superior should choose different leadership styles depending on the situation in order to be successful .

Development of situational theories

While universal leadership theories assume that certain behaviors or personality traits - such as charisma  - fundamentally lead to success, so-called contingency theories (situational leadership) claim that leadership success also depends on the framework conditions in which the superior and his employee are in each case are located. One of the first theories of this kind comes from Fiedler in 1967. He is convinced that leadership success - measured as the performance of the group being led - depends not only on the leadership style, but also on the following factors:

  • Personal relationship between the superior and his employees (those led)
  • Task structure (e.g. level of difficulty)
  • Positional power of the superior
Figure 1: Situational leadership - summary

Different leadership behavior is required depending on the severity of these factors. What this behavior should look like in concrete terms is described in the advanced theory by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard from 1977, which is still one of the most popular models today. Figure 1 summarizes the most important aspects of the entire article.

Situational leadership according to Hersey and Blanchard

Figure 2: The model of situational leadership at a glance

Hersey and Blanchard differentiate between a more task-related and a more personal leadership style. Depending on the “ level of maturity ” of the managed employees, different behavior on the part of the superior is promising. These basic terms were defined by Hersey and Blanchard as follows:

  • Task orientation means that the supervisor prefers to give detailed instructions, he formulates clear expectations and specifications with regard to what has to be done by when and how.
  • In the case of relationship orientation, the supervisor attaches great importance to good personal contacts; he offers support, praises and encourages his employees.
  • Both orientations are a continuum with the two poles “task orientation” and “relationship orientation” (see Figure 2).
  • The degree of maturity of employees comprises two aspects: a factual and a psychological one. In factual terms, “mature” employees strive for responsibility; they develop their skills and specialist knowledge independently. In psychological terms, “mature” employees want to achieve something; they are motivated and committed.
  • The degree of maturity is linked to certain tasks. This means that one employee can demonstrate a high level of maturity in task A (e.g. selling), while in another task B (organizing processes) he can demonstrate a significantly lower level of maturity.
  • Hersey and Blanchard define leadership success as the achievement of goals and the exertion of influence, in which employees perform a specific task. They also respect their superiors and are willing to cooperate. This effectiveness is given when the chosen leadership style matches the maturity of the managed employees.

On the basis of these basic concepts, according to Hersey and Blanchard, four essential behaviors can be derived as recommendations for superiors (see Figure 2).

  • Management style 1: If the employees have a low level of maturity, a high degree of task orientation with a low level of relationship orientation is recommended. In other words: the supervisor should instruct ("telling").
  • Management style 2: If the employee has developed further (low to moderate maturity), it is advisable for the superior to use a strongly employee-related and task-related management style at the same time. It is important to convince the employees ("selling").
  • Management style 3: If his employees are of moderate to high maturity, the manager should be strongly employee-related and at the same time less task-related and should involve them in setting objectives or in decisions (“participating”).
  • Management style 4: Very “mature” employees do not need special attention from their superiors, nor do you need to give them detailed guidelines regarding their tasks and behavior. In this case one should delegate responsibility (“delegating”).

Result: Those superiors who use the right leadership style depending on the situation are successful.

Critical appraisal

Theories that claim to give useful recommendations for practice must also prove their validity as an essential quality criterion. In the case of Hersey and Blanchard's theory of situational leadership, numerous points of criticism have been discussed in the scientific literature. These can be divided into a group on the topic of conceptual or construct validity and a group of statements on the topic of empirical validity. In his meta-study, Barry-Craig Johansen comes to the conclusion that many studies have not succeeded in proving the validity of this theory. This concerns the conceptual, the instrumental and the performance-oriented (prognostic) 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 determine whether such training (based on this theory, d. V.) is valuable."

The core problem is that the central basic concepts of the theory are formulated in such a way that they cannot be measured or operationalized and thus cannot be empirically tested. This affects the task and relationship orientation, the leadership success and the level of maturity of the employees. To overcome these problems, Warren Blank, John Weitzel and Stephen Green conducted an empirical study of 353 employees and 27 executives from two universities in the American Midwest . The relationship- and employee-oriented behavior was operationalized with the help of the Leader Behavior Descriptive Questionnaire. For a valid and reliable assessment of the level of maturity of employees, the authors carried out a separate study in which the respondents were asked to indicate on a scale how they should assess the independence, willingness to take responsibility, motivation and competence (professional experience) of randomly selected employees . The term performance was finally operationalized on the basis of an evaluation of the annual performance assessments in the context of employee interviews . These operationalizations were necessary to test the central assertions (hypotheses) of the theory of situational leadership. Here are a few examples:

  • With a low level of maturity of employees, task-oriented behavior of the supervisor will lead to better performance.
  • Relationship-oriented behavior by the supervisor will increase performance if the level of maturity is medium.
  • The performance and satisfaction of the employees will increase if the supervisor chooses a management style that suits the maturity of the person being led.

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

Conclusion

The lack of validity of the original theory by Hersey and Blanchard and the failed attempt to overcome the criticized inadequacies mean that this theory is unable to make concrete suggestions for improving leadership behavior (for understanding: examples of invalid “theories “Are horoscopes or truisms ).

The more recent research focuses on the one hand on the model of transformational leadership and on the other hand on pragmatic leadership competencies that are aligned with the strategy of the respective organizations . This trend also includes the abandonment of the search for “optimal” or “promising” leadership styles or personality traits. This should be a major reason why there are no further validation studies for the theory of situational leadership.

Situational leadership model according to Gary Yukl

Gary Yukl comes to the same conclusion: “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 that are important ... there was little evidence that using the contingent pattern of task and relations behavior prescribed by the theory will 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. ”One of the merits of Hersey and Blanchard's theory is to have pointed out that it is important to“ ... to treat different subordinates differently ... ”

Another critical review of the practicality (validity) of various (improved) versions of this model from 2009 comes to the result: "... it is difficult to endorse the use of the model in leadership training 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 training programs should, as a matter of professional honesty, advise their trainers that SLT (Situational Leadership Theory, dV) still lacks a strong empirical grounding, and that its alluring character should not substitute for the absence of empirical substantiation. "

literature

  • Warren Blank et al. a .: A Test of the Situational Leadership Theory . In: Personal Psychology. vol. 43, 1990.
  • FE Fiedler: A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness . New York 1967.
  • P. Hersey, K. Blanchard: Management of Organizational Behavior. 4th edition. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey 1982, ISBN 0-13-549600-4 .
  • Barry-Craig Johansen: Situational Leadership: A Reviews of the Research . In: Human Resource Development Quarterly. Vol. 1, No. 1, 1990.
  • N. Nohira et al: What Really Works . In: Harvard Business Review. July 2003.
  • W. Pelz: Leading competently: communicating effectively, motivating employees . 2nd Edition. Gabler, Wiesbaden 2004, ISBN 3-409-12556-6 .
  • L. v. Rosenstiel: Basics of leadership . In: L. v. Rosenstiel u. a .: Leadership of employees. 4th edition. Stuttgart 1999, ISBN 3-7910-1340-8 .
  • R. Stogdill, A. Coons (Eds.): Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement . Research Monograph, Ohio State University, 1957.
  • G. Yukl: Leadership in Organizations. 6th edition. Prentice Hall, New York 2006, ISBN 0-13-814268-8 .

supporting documents

  1. ↑ G. Yukl: Leadership in Organizations. 6th edition. New York 2006.
  2. ^ FE Fiedler: A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness . New York 1967.
  3. ↑ L. v. Rosenstiel: Basics of leadership . In: L. v. Rosenstiel u. a .: Leadership of employees. 4th edition. Stuttgart 1999.
  4. ^ A b P. Hersey, K. Blanchard: Management of Organizational Behavior. 4th edition. New York 1982.
  5. ^ Barry-Craig Johansen: Situational Leadership: A Reviews of the Research . In: Human Resource Development Quarterly , Vol. 1, No. 1, 1990
  6. ^ Barry-Craig Johansen: Situational Leadership: A Reviews of the Research . In: Human Resource Development Quarterly. Vol. 1, No. 1, 1990, p. 82.
  7. ↑ a b Warren Blank u. a .: A Test of the Situational Leadership Theory . In: Personal Psychology. vol. 43, 1990.
  8. ^ Situational Leadership Theory
  9. ↑ Warren Blank et al. a .: A Test of the Situational Leadership Theory . In: Personal Psychology. vol. 43, 1990, p. 593.
  10. ^ Waldemar Pelz: Transformational Leadership - State of Research and Implementation in Practice . In: Au, Corinna von (Ed.): Leadership and applied psychology. Volume 1: Effective and sustainable management approaches. Berlin: Springer Verlag 2016 available online
  11. ↑ N. Nohira include: What Really Works . In: Harvard Business Review. July 2003.
  12. ^ RJ Thomas: Crucibles of Leadership: How to Learn From Experience to Become a Great Leader. Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston 2008.
  13. ↑ Gary A. Yukl: Leadership in Organizations. 6th edition. Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006, pp. 224 f.
  14. ^ G. Thompson, RP Vecchio: Situational leadership theory: A test ot three versions. In: The Leadership Quarterly. 20 (2009), p. 845 f.