Wk3: Case Study

SAGE Books

Leadership for Organizations

The Situational Approach to Leadership

By: David A. Waldman & Charles O’Reilly

Book Title: Leadership for Organizations

Chapter Title: "The Situational Approach to Leadership"

Pub. Date: 2020

Access Date: November 6, 2022

Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc.

City: Thousand Oaks

Print ISBN: 9781544332727

Online ISBN: 9781544360508

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781544360508.n5

Print pages: 55-76

© 2020 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

This PDF has been generated from SAGE Knowledge. Please note that the pagination of the online

version will vary from the pagination of the print book.

The Situational Approach to Leadership

The Situational Approach to Leadership

“Motivation is based on what you bring to it as an individual. What is motivational to one person isn’t motivational to another.”

— Bob Nelson, author and management consultant

Learning Objectives

• 5.1 Identify why flexible approaches to the situational approach to leadership are more practical

• 5.2 Apply the situational approach to leadership to instances involving day-to-day leader behavior, as well as specifically to decision-making

• 5.3 Appraise the potential problems with applying the situational approach to principles

• 5.4 State other important leadership issues that are not taken into account by situational approaches to leadership

A question that is continually addressed in this book is: What makes for effective leadership? For many years, the predominant approach to understanding effective leadership was to identify behavioral factors that would be practiced by any good leader across situations and contexts. In other words, the predominant approach was generic. Thus, the types of styles that were identified in chapter 2, such as relations- and task-oriented leadership, were considered to be universal behavioral qualities that should be practiced across situations and contexts.

On the other hand, when asked what effective leadership is all about, one thing that is likely to come to mind for many people is that “it depends.” And rightfully so—to a large extent, it does depend. Effective leadership, and more specifically the behavioral style that should be emphasized, partly depends on the nature of the people who the leader is attempting to lead, or followers. As mentioned in chapter 1, it may also depend on the greater context in which the leader and followers find themselves. That greater context can include a host of factors such as industry, institution or type of work, and even the geographical context.

In this chapter, we will explore what it depends is all about. As we will see, this situational point of view of effective leadership has a number of practical implications for how leaders should lead on a day-to-day, or problem-to-problem, basis.1 On the other hand, it also has a number of challenges for leaders. For example, getting an accurate reading of followers and their needs and expectations can be challenging. However, such a reading is critical if a situational approach to leadership is to be effective.

There are two ways to consider this approach. The first is an inflexible manner of leading. It essentially assumes that a leader has a predominant style that is not flexible. In other words, the leader will attempt to use a desired or “comfortable” style, regardless of the situation. For example, a leader with a predominantly task- oriented, directive style will want to use it regardless of the nature of the followers whom he or she is leading and regardless of the context. So even if the situation called for a more people-oriented approach, the leader would still want to remain task oriented or directive.2 One possibility would be to simply place such a leader in a context that, at least for the most part, would benefit from a task-oriented, directive leader. Examples might include situations in which work standards or conduct have become lax, in which workers were accustomed to such leadership in the past, and in certain jobs or institutions in which directive leadership is the norm (e.g., military or paramilitary organizations).

Likewise, there are some contexts that institutional norms and the nature of workers typically require more of

SAGE © 2020 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Books

Page 2 of 19 SAGE Books - Leadership for Organizations

a people-oriented or participative style. Examples include the leading of knowledge workers (e.g., university faculty members, computer science specialists, and engineers) and volunteer organizations. A leader with a predominantly people-oriented or participative style would be placed in such contexts.

Accordingly, an inflexible approach could make sense at times. If a particular leader is known for being task oriented or directive, it could be a good match for some situations, while being more of a people-oriented or participative leader might make sense in other situations. In other words, the situation is static, and there is not much need for leader flexibility in terms of the type of style that might be shown toward followers.

Inflexible

a way of considering situational approaches to leadership whereby a leader’s style is considered to be static (or not flexible), and the leader is matched to the prevailing situation.

But with that said, there are two key problems with the inflexible approach. First, the general situation or context may shift over time. For example, when a leader is first assigned to a particular context, followers may generally need and expect a more authoritarian approach. However, over time, followers may mature and develop, thereby making a directive approach less appropriate, while necessitating more people-oriented qualities on the part of the leader, such as participative behavior. However, it may not be practical or desirable to just simply fire or transfer leaders around in order to fit a particular context or changes in that context over time. Second, most situations are fluid and can essentially “zig-zag” in terms of the required leadership approach at a particular point in time. Some followers may need more of a “human touch” at times in terms of people-oriented leadership, or they may have the need and capability to be more fully involved in decision- making. However, other followers may need a more directive approach. In addition, the leader himself or herself may not have enough knowledge or expertise to tackle certain problems alone and, thus, might need some participation on the part of followers, depending on the issue or decision to be made.

In short, more of a flexible approach is warranted, whereby any given leader can handle and adapt to the various needs and capabilities of different followers and situations at various points in time. Accordingly, we describe three such approaches in the remainder of this chapter: (1) path-goal, (2) Hersey/Blanchard situational approach to leader decision-making, and (3) Vroom/Jago contingency leadership. Although they all represent different forms of a flexible approach, Table 5.1 depicts different aspects and foci of these models. Perhaps most importantly in terms of the targeted behavior, path-goal represents a generalized form of flexible leadership because it pertains to day-to-day interactions with followers—and the problems or issues they face, that may or may not involve decision-making processes. Somewhat more narrowly, both the Hersey/Blanchard and Vroom/Jago models deal more specifically with how leaders go about making decisions that affect or could include followers. We consider these different approaches in more detail below.

Flexible

a way of considering situational approaches to leadership whereby any given leader can handle and adapt to the various needs and capabilities of different followers and situations at various points in time.

Table 5.1 Overview of Models of Situational Approaches to Leadership

Targeted Behavior Situational Factor(s) Possible Leader Styles

Path-goal Day-to-day interactions and problems or issues that are faced by followers

Needs of the follower and leader, as well as demands of the work environment

Directive

Supportive

Participative

Achievement- oriented

SAGE © 2020 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Books

Page 3 of 19 SAGE Books - Leadership for Organizations

Hersey/ Blanchard

Decision-making Follower readiness in terms of both ability and motivation

Directive

Consultative

Facilitative

Delegative

Vroom/Jago Decision-making Nature of the decision, situational readiness of followers, and leader expertise

Directive

Consultative

Facilitative

Delegative

Path-Goal Leadership

At a basic level, the relationship between leaders and followers is all about transactions. Leaders and the organizations that they represent get something out of the transaction (i.e., employee performance), while at the same time, followers benefit as well from the transaction (i.e., various rewards such as continuous employment and better work assignments). The problem is that issues or difficulties may arise on a day-to- day basis that keep these transactions from being consummated to everyone’s satisfaction. To this end, the overall purpose of path-goal leadership is for leaders to adapt their style to fit the situational needs of followers and their work environment.3 The goal is for leaders to use an appropriate style that will clarify the actions that need to be taken by followers (i.e., the “path”) so that they can realize their rewards, while avoiding problems, such as reprimands. But simultaneously, the needs of the work environment, including the leader himself or herself, must be met in order for a transaction to be effective.

Let’s consider some examples based on follower needs that are shown in Table 5.2. If a follower is relatively new on the job or is facing a task with which she has no experience, it would help to have directive leadership. That directive leadership will provide clarity so that the follower will be more assured that her efforts will lead to effective performance and rewards (e.g., job security, the possibility of more responsibility, and so forth). In addition, if there is a great time pressure to get something done, the leader may feel a need to be directive in order to realize organizational goals, as well as the personal goals of followers.

If a follower lacks confidence, the leader should focus on supportive behaviors to help prop up the follower’s self-confidence. Such is oftentimes the case for new employees. Although positive reinforcement should be applied to all followers, it may be especially important for new employees who may lack confidence. Further, from time to time, followers may experience personal difficulties (e.g., problematic personal relationships, death of a significant other, and so forth) that might hurt them emotionally and that threaten their ability to accomplish work goals. Under such circumstances, it behooves the leader to show supportive behavior.

As also shown in Table 5.2, sometimes followers desire more involvement or voice, which in and of itself could reflect a personal goal (i.e., followers may have a felt need for involvement in their work settings). For example, followers may feel a need to get involved in a range of decision-making, even beyond how their job tasks are performed, such as team scheduling, production standards, quality improvement efforts, and so forth. By being more participative and allowing employee voice, the leader enhances the follower’s sense of control and ensures that his or her needs are met. On the other hand, and as articulated further later in this chapter, there can be a conflict between a follower’s desire for more participation and his or her readiness or capability to effectively handle that participation—at least in the eyes of the leader.

From a path-goal perspective, follower voice can have an additional advantage that goes beyond task-related or workplace decision-making. When leaders allow for followers to speak up or have voice, they can learn more about their own personal goals or needs. For example, in a video associated with chapter 3, the head of a minor league baseball league, Dave Kaval, describes a conversation with an employee who has not been following his directives. Instead of just reprimanding the employee, he takes the opportunity to provide

SAGE © 2020 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Books

Page 4 of 19 SAGE Books - Leadership for Organizations

the employee with voice, thereby learning about a special desire that the employee has to play the role of a team’s mascot. In a path-goal mode, Kaval negotiates with the employee about how this desire can be satisfied if the employee learns to more conscientiously follow directives. In this way, the goals of both Kaval and the employee are attained.

Table 5.2 Situational Demands, Path-Goal Leadership Styles, and Effects on Followers

Follower Needs Leadership Style Effects on Followers

Work is ambiguous for followers; time pressures exist in work environment

Directive Clarifies what needs to be done in order to attain rewards

Followers lack confidence or need personal support Supportive Increases followers’ confidence or emotional ability to achieve work results

Followers both desire and should have more voice or involvement

Participative Allows a sense of control in making sure that results are achieved and rewards are attained

Work is not challenging for followers Achievement- oriented

Allows followers to strive for higher-level goals

Finally, achievement-oriented leadership may be warranted when a follower is not being appropriately challenged. If not properly challenged, followers may get bored and frustrated, which could eventually lead to turnover. But again, it is always possible that a follower may think that she could use more challenging work, and she might even lobby her leader for it, but the leader may feel differently, or such opportunities are simply not available in the organizational context. This often occurs for relatively new employees or employees who are “freshly minted” from school. The leader may feel that the new employee is not ready for increased challenges, or that the new employee has not “paid her dues” in terms of time spent conducting lower-level tasks.

One thing that should be emphasized is that these styles are neither mutually exclusive, nor rigid in their application. In other words, it is possible that in a given situation, a follower might best be served by applying more than one style relatively simultaneously, although one of those styles might be predominant. For example, a leader might choose to be mainly directive but still be somewhat supportive. In addition, if in a given situation, a leader has shown a strong tendency toward being supportive, but it has not worked out well in terms of achieving goals for either the follower or the organization, it is always possible to switch to another style over time (e.g., become more directive).

As a final note about path-goal leadership, it should be clear in the above discussion that it is largely about the follower and specifically dealing with individual follower needs. However, the follower is not the only one with needs. The needs of the work environment, as well as those of the leader himself or herself, must be met in order for a transaction to be effective. It is quite possible for the needs of the various parties to clash. For example, there could be times when a follower needs personal support, but the needs of the work environment or the leader suggest that a more directive approach is warranted. Highly uncertain or crisis conditions come to mind, whereby even if a follower has personal problems (which might suggest the need for supportive leadership), the leader might perceive a lack of time to provide such support, and instead, he is highly directive and demanding of the follower in that situation.

Hersey/Blanchard Approach to Decision-Making Based on the Situation

Decision-making is an obviously important task for leaders. From a leadership perspective, we focus on the process by which leaders make decisions rather than on the nature of the decisions that are actually made.4 We especially consider the extent to which they involve followers in that process. Hersey and Blanchard put forth a situational approach to leadership, specifically leader decision-making that has been used primarily to

SAGE © 2020 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Books

Page 5 of 19 SAGE Books - Leadership for Organizations

help leaders determine a decision-making style in various situations that they face.5 The basic question is if, and to what degree, followers should get involved in decision-making.

Decision-making styles.

As shown in Figure 5.1, there are four basic styles that may be used. The first style is to be directive, whereby the leader makes decisions for followers and provides explicit directives or instructions. A second style is consultative, whereby the leader seeks input from followers, allows for questions, and overall provides followers with some degree of voice in the decision-making process. Indeed, the leader might even go through more than one iteration, whereby a solution to a problem is posed, followers provide input, the leader reformulates a modified solution, followers provide more input, and so forth. Third, the leader may engage in a facilitative style, whereby the leader encourages equal participation with followers in a decision-making process. As such, a decision or plan of action is not reached until both the leader and followers come to consensus. During the process, the leader may act as a discussion facilitator, but the leader makes it clear that he or she has just one voice, and followers have equal voice. Finally, the leader may choose a delegative style, whereby the decision-making process and its implementation are turned over to followers.

Two things should be noted about these styles. First, each one could apply to a single follower, or to the larger team as a whole. For example, if a decision or task applies to a single follower and if the leader determines that consultative is the appropriate style, the leader would confer with that follower alone. However, if the decision or task pertains to the larger team, the leader would consult with multiple individuals in the team. Depending on the leader’s preference, such consultation could be conducted one-on-one or, alternatively, take place in a team meeting.

Figure 5.1 Leader Decision-Making Styles

Source: Adapted from Vroom, V. H. (2000). Leadership and the Decision-Making Process. Organizational Dynamics, 28(4), 82–94.

Second, Figure 5.1 shows a dashed line that signifies Demarcation of Control. At its core, decision-making is all about control, versus giving up control. The dashed line signifies the point at which control of decision- making shifts to followers, specifically through the use of facilitative and delegative styles on the part of the leader. It is interesting to note that consultative is a very popular style among leaders, since it gives them the sense that they are involving followers in decision-making and providing them with voice. However, a consultative style does not involve what might be termed true participation, since the authority or control remains in the hands of the leader. Some leaders might argue that regardless of the situation, control should always rest with the leader. After all, in the end, the leader will be held to account for decisions and actions emanating from his or her team. However, the situational viewpoint would suggest that there are times or

SAGE © 2020 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Books

Page 6 of 19 SAGE Books - Leadership for Organizations

contexts in which either facilitative or even delegative styles of leadership would be more appropriate. But what are these situational factors?

Demarcation of Control

the point at which decision-making control shifts from leader to followers, specifically through the use of facilitative and delegative styles on the part of the leader.

Using the Hersey/Blanchard approach, the key situational variable to consider is follower readiness, which takes into account both ability and confidence or motivation on the part of the follower. As shown in Table 5.3, there are four readiness levels. At level 1, followers have low ability and low confidence or motivation. Accordingly, the prescribed leadership style is for the leader to be directive. A directive style might thus be most appropriate when followers are very new to a job, and they lack both ability and confidence. At level 2 readiness, a consultative style should work best. Followers lack a high degree of ability or expertise to make a decision, but they demonstrate a degree of confidence and a motivation to be involved in the decision-making. For example, after some time on the job, followers may start to increase their abilities and expertise pertaining to certain decisions, but not to the extent of being able to fully involve them in decision- making through a facilitative process. However, at level 3 readiness, followers have the requisite abilities, information, or expertise to be highly involved in a decision-making process, even to the degree of having an equal voice with the leader. With that said, they may also lack some confidence to make a decision on their own and carry it out. Accordingly, the leader should facilitate the decision-making process. Finally, at level 4 readiness, followers are able, willing, and confident enough to essentially take over or accept responsibility for a decision-making process. Using this delegative approach, the leader may simply provide an overall goal, vision, or general parameters of what needs to be accomplished. But the actual decision-making and implementation are left to followers.

Table 5.3 Effective Leadership Style Based on Follower Readiness

Leadership Style Follower Readiness Levels

Directive Level 1: lack of ability and confidence regarding the problem at hand

Consultative Level 2: lack of ability, but confidence and motivation to be involved in decision-making for the problem at hand

Facilitative Level 3: strong ability or information pertaining to the problem at hand, but low confidence to make a decision independently

Delegative Level 4: very high readiness in terms of both ability and confidence to address the problem at hand

For instance, consider the following situation that happened to a recent MBA graduate who was appointed the manager of a kidney dialysis clinic. Although she had several years of experience as a teacher and educational administrator, she had little experience in health care. The clinic consisted of 40 staff members, including kidney dialysis technicians, nurses, administrative personnel, and social workers, all of whom had long tenure and in-depth technical skills. The problem facing the new manager was a complicated scheduling issue that needed to accommodate vacations, personal time off, and unexpected absences. The manager’s first instinct was to use her considerable spreadsheet skills and construct the optimal schedule for the clinic. Doing this quickly in a directive mode would be both quick and efficient. Upon reflection, however, she realized that the staff—although they may have lacked her modeling skills—were willing, able, and confident enough to come up with the schedule themselves. Although it took longer, by delegating the task and decision-making to her staff, she ended up with a schedule that the employees “owned.” In other words, they were willing to live with the schedule that they had devised in a way they might not have if she had simply used her own expertise to solve the problem and make the decision.

Fluidity is one thing that should be made clear about the real-world application of the Hersey/Blanchard

SAGE © 2020 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Books

Page 7 of 19 SAGE Books - Leadership for Organizations

approach, as well as that of Vroom/Jago, which follows next. That is, different styles of leadership might be shown to the same followers in different decision-making situations. For example, over time, followers may achieve a relatively high level of readiness with regard to the technical aspects of their own work; hence, the leader might be either facilitative or delegative with these aspects. However, for broader organizational issues (e.g., unit-level scheduling and work standards), followers may not be so ready to assume control of decision-making. In those circumstances, either a directive or consultative approach would be optimum. Even for a given decision-making process, depending on how things proceed, the leader might feel the need to change course over time. For example, a leader may have initially determined that delegation was the way to go to formulate a vacation schedule for her employees. But after a few meetings among employees, it becomes apparent to them that they cannot reach agreement due to a lack of confidence or knowledge regarding scheduling parameters. If this were to occur, the leader might feel the need to backtrack and either use a more facilitative or consultative approach to solve the problem and make a decision. Of course, as will be considered later in the chapter, followers may not understand or appreciate fluidity in the leader’s decision- making, which might cause them to question or even not accept the leader’s situational approach.

Fluidity

how different styles of leadership might be shown to the same followers in different decision-making situations or even in the same situation over time.

Vroom/Jago Approach to Decision-Making Based on the Situation

While the work of Hersey and Blanchard is useful in an attempt to understand situational approaches to leader decision-making, the situational factor to be considered, follower readiness, is somewhat simplistic or incomplete. There are other factors that come into play, including the significance of the problem or decision at hand, leader expertise to deal with the problem on his or her own, the amount of commitment that is necessary from followers, and followers’ ability to work together as a team to solve a problem (assuming that the problem is team, rather than individual, based). All of these factors are considered simultaneously by an approach to leader decision-making that was authored by Vroom and Jago.6

As shown in Table 5.4, in any given decision-making situation, there are seven questions that are relevant to determining the degree of follower involvement. Depending on the answers to these questions, the leader would be pushed more or less toward follower involvement in the decision-making process. A distinguishing aspect of this process is that the leader follows a decision tree analysis as shown in Figures 5.2 and 5.3. A decision tree allows for branching out in different directions with the different questions that are depicted in Table 5.4. The path that one takes in the decision tree depends on the answer to a prior question in Table 5.4. For instance, in the scheduling problem described above, although the clinic manager had sufficient information to make the decision, she also realized that acceptance among her subordinates would be critical and that they had the skills to come up with a good solution. Using the models depicted in Figures 5.2 and 5.3, these aspects of the situation would push the manager to be either facilitative or delegative.

Table 5.4 Situational Questions and Implications for Follower Involvement

Situational Questions Implications for Follower Involvement

1. How important is the decision or problem in relation to the effectiveness of the organization?

If the decision lacks importance, then most of the remaining questions will not be relevant. In most instances, the leader should simply make a decision on his or her own. However, if the decision is important, then the remaining questions become more relevant, and different styles may be appropriate, depending on how the remaining questions are answered.

2. For implementation purposes, how important is follower commitment to carrying out any decision that is made?

Some decisions can be carried out even if followers are not involved or committed to their implementation. However, if implementation requires follower commitment, a high degree of follower involvement in decision- making is required.

SAGE © 2020 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Books

Page 8 of 19 SAGE Books - Leadership for Organizations

3. How much expertise or information does the leader have with regard to the decision or problem at hand?

If the leader’s expertise or information is minimal, he or she should involve followers in the decision-making.

4. If the leader was to make the decision alone, would followers just go along with it?

In some contexts, followers are used to leaders simply making decisions on their own, and the followers just go along with those decisions. If that is the case, then follower involvement in the decision-making at hand will be less important.

5. To what extent are the followers supportive of organizational goals that are relevant to the decision or problem at hand?

If followers have low support for organizational goals, then their involvement in the decision-making should be minimal.

6. What is followers’ level of expertise or information in relation to the decision or problem at hand?

If followers’ expertise or information is extensive, then it makes sense to get them more involved in decision- making.

7. How skilled and committed are followers in terms of working together to solve problems?

If followers can work cooperatively with each other, or with the leader, to solve problems, then they should be more involved in decision-making.

SAGE © 2020 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Books

Page 9 of 19 SAGE Books - Leadership for Organizations

Figure 5.2 Time-Sensitive Model—Appropriate Decision-Making Style

Sources: Adapted from Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; and Vroom, V. H. (2000). Leadership and the Decision- Making Process. Organizational Dynamics, 28(4), 82–94.

Two things are of special note in Figures 5.2 and 5.3. First, some questions can be skipped, as shown by dashed lines. The research of Vroom and Jago would suggest that depending on the answer to some of the questions, other questions might be skipped. Second, Figure 5.2 refers to a time-sensitive model, while Figure 5.3 involves a follower development model. Some decision-making that leaders face is very time sensitive in that a decision must be made relatively quickly, which can occur most readily through directive or consultative styles. On the other hand, if a decision is not so pressing, the follower development model might be used. Part of a leader’s responsibility is to develop the abilities of followers, including decision-making and problem- solving abilities. Allowing more involvement in decision-making processes represents a way for leaders to help give followers a better understanding of work and organizational issues, and it may even lead to positive outcomes such as heightened organizational commitment and effort on the part of followers.

SAGE © 2020 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Books

Page 10 of 19 SAGE Books - Leadership for Organizations

Figure 5.3 Follower Development Model—Appropriate Decision-Making Style

Sources: Adapted from Vroom & Jago (1988); and Vroom (2000).

A close inspection of Figures 5.2 and 5.3 reveals that the development-oriented model yields more instances of facilitative and delegative styles being prescribed for the leader. This should not be surprising in that these styles are characterized by the most follower involvement. With that said, there are going to be some instances when the two models converge and yield the same prescribed style. Sample written cases are listed in the Appendix of this chapter. Each case provides enough information to use the decision tree models that are shown in Figures 5.2 and 5.3 in order to come up with a prescribed leader style.

One intuitive question arises in relation to the practical use of these models: Would a manager really stop everything that he or she is doing in order to sit down and work his or her way through these models? Practically speaking, leaders are busy people who are sometimes on the go or engaging in what has become known as multitasking. So would they actually have the time or ability to use the Vroom and Jago models? In our own experience, the answer is actually yes, especially for more important decisions for which the leader may have time to reflect about the best way to approach it. At a minimum, these models can serve as a more systematic way to check “gut-level” reactions that a leader might have regarding how to approach a decision- making process. Indeed, the cases in the Appendix ask you to compare your gut-level, or first impression, choice of a decision style to what the Vroom/Jago models would suggest. In some instances, they might be

SAGE © 2020 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Books

Page 11 of 19 SAGE Books - Leadership for Organizations

the same thing. But in other instances, the models might contradict your gut-level choice. If that occurs, then it is quite possible that the models are picking up on something that your first impression of the case may be missing.

Putting Situational Approaches to Leadership in Perspective

The situational perspective of leadership represents a practical, day-to-day tool for leaders. The models that we have described in this chapter help to answer the it all depends issue for leaders who struggle with how to proceed in a variety of situations that might involve followers. But with that said, there are three key limitations of situational approaches to leadership that we need to address before concluding this chapter: (1) the extent of leader flexibility, (2) differences in leader and follower perceptions, and (3) limited scope.

Leader flexibility.

It is arguable as to the extent that a leader can truly exhibit each of the styles that are featured in this chapter. For example, some leaders may simply have a natural tendency to be task oriented or directive, while others feel more comfortable being supportive or participative. In other words, they cannot readily alter their styles to fit the needs of a given situation. The original proponents of the inflexible way of considering situational approaches to leadership, mentioned early in this chapter, stressed this issue. Overall, while potential inflexibility may be problematic, we believe that leaders should at least attempt to be more flexible in their styles, depending on the situation.

Differences in perceptions.

It should be clear that the models and approaches described in this chapter rely on the leader’s perceptions regarding how to proceed in various situations. While the models help guide the leader, in the end, it boils down to his or her perceptions regarding situational factors. However, followers might not have the same perceptions. So in a particular instance, a leader might use one or more of the models described in this chapter and determine that either a directive or consultative approach should be taken. But followers might perceive that a facilitative, or even delegative, approach would be better for them. If there is a difference, who is right?

In a way, the question is moot, since the leader will choose an approach that he or she thinks is the best. Nevertheless, at least to some degree, leadership is a granting process. That is, leaders cannot lead unless followers grant or accept a leader’s right to lead them.7 To be sure, the Vroom/Jago models do to some extent take this granting process into account. Specifically, their models ask the question regarding whether followers would follow a leader’s directive if the leader was to make a decision on his or her own. But again, it comes back to the issue of perceptions. If a leader answers this question as yes but, in reality, followers would not necessarily follow a decision that was made autocratically, then there could be problems in terms of actually getting a decision implemented. The upshot is that leaders need to be continually questioning their perceptions of the situation to determine the extent to which they might be shared by others, especially followers.

Limited scope.

The situational perspective generally represents a somewhat reactive, short-term, or maintaining the status quo approach to effective leadership. But in reality, some leadership actions should be more long term and oriented toward change. Moreover, there are a number of contemporary issues in leadership that are simply not considered by the situational approach. These issues will be addressed in the remainder of this book, and they include such topics as

• ethics and responsibility, • coaching and providing and accepting feedback, • diversity,

SAGE © 2020 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Books

Page 12 of 19 SAGE Books - Leadership for Organizations

1.

2.

• team development, • vision and change, and • shaping culture.

Videos for This Chapter

The videos for this chapter are most relevant to the path-goal approach. They each involve the same leader, and they deal with employees who have unique problems. Those problems could end up threatening their own goal fulfillment, as well as the goals of the organization. Accordingly, the leader must determine which style of leadership to emphasize in these respective situations.

Video Case 5.1 “Technical Prima Donna”

Brian NeSmith, CEO of Blue Coat Systems, faces a situation in which a star technical performer, or “Prima Donna,” cannot seem to get along with coworkers and is actually being quite damaging to interpersonal relations in the team.

Video Case 5.2 “Unmotivated Subordinate”

In this video, Brian NeSmith faces a situation with a subordinate project manager, who seems to lack energy and enthusiasm at a key point in time (i.e., a “restart mode”) during which the future of the firm is on the line.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we have characterized both inflexible and flexible ways of thinking about situational approaches to leadership. We concluded that a more flexible approach is probably the most practical. The basic idea is that the leader should alter his or her leadership style to fit the needs of the situation. Several approaches were overviewed here. Together, they help to form a foundation for effective leadership. However, as also emphasized, the situational perspective does not solve the entire riddle of what it means to be effective as a leader. In the remainder of this book, we will explore more contemporary and strategic ideas regarding leader effectiveness.

Definitions of Bolded Terms

• Inflexible 56 • Flexible 57 • Demarcation of Control 61 • Fluidity 63

Appendix

Cases in Leader Decision-Making

Apply these instructions for these cases:

For each case below, try to determine a first impression or gut-level reaction as to which leadership style that is shown in Figure 5.1 should be used. Then analyze the case using the Vroom/Jago models in the text of this chapter. Determine the prescribed leadership or decision style. Do each in two ways: (a) time driven and (b) development driven. Note that in all decision-making contexts, desirable information is likely to be missing. Nevertheless, enough information is present in each case for you to be able to use the Vroom/Jago models. Does your initial, or gut-level, reaction differ from the ones that would be determined by the Vroom-

SAGE © 2020 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Books

Page 13 of 19 SAGE Books - Leadership for Organizations

1.

2.

Jago models? If so, why? Are those models picking up on something that your first impression may be missing?

Notes:

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, consulting-selling is significantly different from facilitating- participating. The degree of power that is shared between leader and follower(s) is the key difference. Consulting is very popular with managers because it is relatively easy, it makes sense in many situations, and provides for employee input while allowing the manager to maintain control of the decision-making process. However, it does not involve true participation, although it may seem that the manager is involving employees in his her decision-making to at least some degree. Maintaining power through the control over the decision is significantly different from sharing the decision-making power, as is the case with the facilitating-participating style. Cases 4 and 5 are individual in nature (i.e., one-on-one between a leader and individual follower), while the others involve the group as a whole. The diagnostic questions in the text of this chapter can be applied to both types of cases.

Here’s a relatively simple example:

• Read Case 1: Office Carpeting below, then return here.

Response: In the time-driven model, one should determine that the significance of the decision is low. All shades of the carpet color are acceptable, and the salespeople will not care very much, since most of their time is spent out of the office. One should also determine that the importance of commitment from the assistant is also low—once installed, the business of the salespeople will be done without further consideration of the carpeting. This leads to only one effective, option—Decide.

In the development-based model, these same determinations lead to the same option—Decide. Thus, for Case 1, the time-driven and the development-driven models lead to the same situational approach to leadership. However, in other instances, the two models will often differ in terms of prescribed options. As a general rule, the time-driven model tends to push the viable options toward the left side of the continuum shown in Figure 5.1. Conversely, the development-driven model pushes the viable options toward the right side of the continuum.

Case 1: Office Carpeting

You are the office manager of a group of salespeople who spend most of their time outside of the office on sales calls (i.e., “outside” salespeople). Your office has been undergoing some remodeling, and a decision has to be made regarding the exact shade of the new carpeting in your offices. To match carpeting in the rest of the building, you already know that it will be a neutral color, such as a shade of beige. The company managing the restoration has sent you a color chart with carpeting samples. A decision is expected very soon so that installation can proceed. The question is the extent to which you should get others involved in this decision.

Case 2: Border Patrol

You are an experienced commander of a U.S. border patrol unit. You have a number of personnel reporting to you with specialties in law enforcement (both aerial and on the ground), forensic information management, and medical. The mission of your unit is primarily to enforce border security. But sometimes it includes search and rescue of illegal immigrants who may be lost or facing life-threatening situations (e.g., hunger or dehydration) in the desert. As such, your border patrol agents come into contact with a range of individuals, some of whom may be very dangerous (e.g., armed drug and human traffickers).

It’s the middle of June, and temperatures are above average, even for this time of year. At 9 p.m. this evening, your unit received information that a group of illegal immigrants had been spotted in your enforcement

SAGE © 2020 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Books

Page 14 of 19 SAGE Books - Leadership for Organizations

corridor. The intelligence (“intel”) in this communication suggested that a number of the individuals in the group might be suffering from emergency medical issues, such as dehydration. Moreover, there is information to suggest that female members of the group have been, or potentially could be, victims of sexual assault. However, others in the group were considered to be armed and dangerous, which would complicate any rescue attempt. Given the time of year, lives could be lost if no action is taken quickly. On the other hand, the safety of your team must be considered, especially since it’s the middle of the night, which always creates more dangerous circumstances. The safety issue for your team is accentuated by the fact that your team is currently understaffed, making nighttime rescues even more dangerous.

You have dealt successfully with such rescue situations before, and you have significant expertise of your own to handle these types of decision-making situations. A decision must be made shortly about whether to proceed quickly with a rescue attempt that might simultaneously involve an arrest and “takedown” of dangerous individuals. If you delay the attempt till daylight, it is quite likely that lives will be lost, or serious injury could be suffered, and the illegal immigrant group in question might scatter, making rescue and arrests much more difficult. However, if you move forward quickly, you will greatly increase the risks for your team.

You have much confidence in your team regarding their individual know-how and conscientiousness about their responsibilities and mission. However, you have seen some divisiveness and counterproductive conflict in their team decision-making on prior occasions (e.g., opinions about how an actual rescue and/or takedown should proceed). Accordingly, in this instance, you believe that they might be divided on the decision of whether and how an immediate rescue should be planned and executed. The resulting conflict only results in time being wasted in these types of situations. How should your decision-making process proceed, and to what degree should your team be involved in that process?

Case 3: Operations Problem

You are the plant manager of a pillow factory in the midwestern part of the United States. Approximately a year ago, it became evident that your factory and other factories within the firm could be doing better in terms of both production and quality. Operations experts at the corporate level searched for ways to increase production and quality at the firm’s factories. They recently lobbied for, and got members of top management to agree to, the implementation of a new work system at the firm’s factories that, among other things, simplifies job tasks by making them more repetitive. But to their surprise, expected increases in productivity have not been realized, at least at your factory. In fact, production and quality have dropped, and to make matters worse, the amount of employee turnover has risen, which has only served to increase your costs.

You suspect that certain aspects of the new work system may be responsible for the deteriorating performance. This view is largely shared among your management team, which includes several production supervisors (each in charge of a section of the factory), as well as your supply chain and human resource managers and comptroller. Together, they have a great deal of expertise in operational, financial, and people- oriented issues. In one-on-one discussions with you, they have suggested that the drop in production and quality (as well as increased turnover) might be attributable to things such as poor training of the operators, too much repetition in job tasks, lack of the ability to talk with fellow employees while doing job tasks, and poor morale. Clearly this is an issue about which there is considerable depth of knowledge, feeling, and concern. In the past, your management team in the factory has shown that they truly want the organization to succeed, and if given the opportunity, they can work together to make it happen. Also in the past, you have shown a tendency to include the management team in your decision-making processes, and they are accustomed to such involvement.

Today, you had a phone call with the chief operation officer of the firm. She had just received your production figures for the last six months and was calling to express her concerns. She indicated that the problem was yours to solve in any way that you see fit, even if it means scrapping the new work system that had been more or less forced upon your factory. But at the same time, she would like to see definitive improvements in both production and quality in the near future.

You share her concerns, and you know that your management team is also concerned and wants things to improve. The problem is to determine what should be done to rectify the situation and how to engage in the

SAGE © 2020 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Books

Page 15 of 19 SAGE Books - Leadership for Organizations

appropriate decision-making process to make it happen. In this particular instance, how should you proceed?

Case 4: Problematic Accountant

You are a manager of a regional accounting firm. Your firm prides itself in providing more “hometown,” or personalized, customer service, as compared to the major accounting firms. You have a staff of eight junior accountants reporting to you, each of whom engages with clients in the field. You recently received a complaint about one of these individuals from a long-term client. It was clear that the client was dissatisfied with this particular accountant, and she gave some specific examples of missed deadlines and other aspects of faulty performance. Obviously, you are concerned, since you want to retain the client’s business.

The individual accountant in question has been with the firm for a number of years. He specializes in how information systems can be linked to accounting and, in the past, has been very good at his job. He is used to making his own decisions rather than being told what to do. But recently, there has been a big change in his demeanor. While he used to be committed to the firm, now it is not as clear as to the degree that he cares about his work and responsibilities. Indeed, evidently the problem is not just this one client. Not that long ago, another client told you that the individual seemed to be acting strangely and even hinted at possible drinking or substance abuse issues.

Undoubtedly, the individual in question has valuable skills and experience, and it would be very difficult to find a suitable replacement. Your instincts tell you that this person could be helped, and his performance return to what it used to be, but you don’t know what the problem is, nor how to counsel him. Should you just tell him what to do or what needs to be changed? Should you consult with him and then lay down an action plan for how he should proceed? Should you facilitate a discussion with him, whereby you mutually devise an action plan with which you both can live? Should you present your perceptions of the problem to him and then just let him solve the problem on his own?

Case 5: Replacing an Employee

Six months ago you were brought in as a director in a management consulting firm. Your appointment was partially due to a decision to gradually eliminate a small unit in the firm under your control that deals largely with government-based contracts and grants. You have experience in such downsizing efforts. From the outset, it was a tricky situation, since people would have to be let go from the unit in question if natural attrition did not occur pretty quickly.

After arriving at your new job, it gradually became apparent that natural attrition would not realize the elimination of the unit in question within a reasonable period of time. Accordingly, you had to make it known to the remaining employees in the unit in question that they only had several months to find new employment. Although unforeseen, an employee in a totally separate unit started to think that her own unit was the next one to be eliminated (even though that really was not the case). Although you really did not want to lose this person, she found what she claimed to be a better job with a better salary, and she resigned, giving only a two-week notice. You tried to persuade this person (Person A) to rethink the matter, but it was clear to you that this individual was fearful of losing her job without adequate warning. Moreover, she seemed to be happy to leave your organization and move on. Nevertheless, her departure will be a loss because of Person A’s superb technical skills.

You began an immediate search for a new employee to replace Person A, hoping to find someone who could start as soon as possible, even before Person A was to leave. You need an individual who is competent in various types of statistical analyses and database management, who is highly experienced in working with such computer statistical software as SPSS, and who is able and motivated to work with clients to help solve their problems.

You have learned about three promising candidates through some personal contacts that you possess. They appear to have the kind of educational background that you require, but you know little about their familiarity with the computer software required for the job and other aspects of their technical abilities. These

SAGE © 2020 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Books

Page 16 of 19 SAGE Books - Leadership for Organizations

requirements are really out of the realm of your personal expertise. The individual most knowledgeable about these issues and most able to evaluate the abilities of the job candidates, at least in the short term, is your present data analysis specialist, Person A. You hope to reach a decision among the three candidates by next week. The question in your mind is whether and how, or to what degree, you should try to involve Person A in your decision-making about her replacement.

Case 6: Leading a Research Project

You are the designated leader of a research project at a multinational, social media firm based out of the United States. Your boss has made it clear that it’s important that your project should lead directly to a marketable product within a relatively short period of time. But at the same time, you realize that you work in an organization in which the reporting lines are unclear, and project leaders such as yourself do not have a lot of authority to make decisions on their own.

You personally have a lot of experience in projects of this nature as both a researcher and project leader. Those projects have typically culminated in successful, marketable products for your firm, and you have personally been recognized for that success. Thus, you are very confident in your assessment of the actions and directions that need to be taken to make the project successful.

There are four other individuals on this project. While you are based in the United States, these other individuals are located in China (and they are Chinese nationals). One of those individuals is very assertive, and she has tried to take on an informal leadership role for the project. Indeed, the other Chinese members of the team tend to look at this individual as an informal leader, and they often side with her, rather than you, on various issues. However, based on your assessment, her judgment and experience (as well as that of the other three individuals) with the issues pertaining to this project are lacking. Moreover, the informal leader’s attempt to influence is holding up the progress of the overall team. Complicating the matter is that she is highly confident in her own decision-making to positively affect the team, although you think that such confidence is misguided. If she continues to project her influence so aggressively, the project will likely not be successful or completed within its tight schedule. On the other hand, one good thing is that you all want the project and the organization to succeed.

It is important to have all members of the team committed to the same course of action that is taken by the team, or else there could be setbacks that could throw the team off schedule. The question in your mind is whether to attempt to force your opinions by imposing your influence on team members, especially the informal leader, or should you attempt to be more facilitative in your actions?

Case 7: Planning a Doctoral Program

You are the dean of a relatively new business school at a major state university. Up until this point in time, the school has delivered only undergraduate and master’s-level programs. However, as the school has grown and matured, it is becoming increasingly clear that you should start to think about whether a doctoral program should be added to the school’s offerings. If such a decision is made, it would have implications for the faculty, use of school resources, and relationships with other units within the university’s structure. In addition, there are a number of directions that the school might take, such as establishing its own independent doctoral program or, alternatively, attempting to partner with some other unit on campus, or even another university, to deliver the program.

You have assembled a committee of faculty members and other administrators within the school (e.g., a department chair and the graduate program director) to study possibilities. The goal is to decide if the school should indeed pursue a doctoral program and, if so, which direction it should take in the planning process. These individuals are among the most accomplished faculty members of the school. Moreover, they are generally in agreement with the organization’s goals and new initiatives, and they are able to work together as a group relatively effectively.

Any plan that is established will need the commitment of the type of faculty members who are on the

SAGE © 2020 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Books

Page 17 of 19 SAGE Books - Leadership for Organizations

committee in order to ensure that it is properly carried out. If there is resistance or apathy, the plan could fail (i.e., an unsuccessful doctoral program). You estimate that such resistance or apathy could be possible if you attempt to plan or make decisions relative to a doctoral program based on your own authority. Realistically, you have only a moderate amount of experience or expertise with regard to doctoral programs, since the university at which you have worked over most of your career did not have such a program. Moreover, personal supervision or mentoring is key to doctoral programs, and you have never supervised doctoral students yourself. At the same time, a number of people on the committee have more experience, including the supervision of doctoral students at other universities at which they have worked. Despite these considerations, like other initiatives in the school, you will ultimately be responsible for the success or failure of any doctoral program that may be established.

The question is how you should proceed. Should you just come up with the plan on your own? Should you consult with the committee and then design an action plan for how the school should proceed? Should you facilitate a discussion with the committee whereby you mutually devise an action plan? Should you present your perceptions of the problem to the committee, briefly discuss potential alternative directions, and then just let them solve the problem on their own (i.e., come up with their own plan)?

Case 8: Vacation Scheduling

You are in charge of a relatively large automobile service center. For the most part, you allow your mechanics and technicians a high degree of autonomy with regard to how they technically handle their service assignments on particular cars that are in your facility for servicing. If they need help or advice in particular instances, they are encouraged to consult with each other or consult with you.

On the other hand, when it comes to decisions or policy-making that would pertain to the service center as a whole, you have almost always been more autocratic in your decision-making approach. These decisions pertain to such things as work standards (i.e., productivity), personal time scheduling, and vacation scheduling. One thing that you have noticed is that although your employees take their work seriously, they can often be very selfish about their own needs rather than understanding or caring about the needs of the greater organization or their coworkers. For example, you have recently allowed employees to go to a four-day-a-week work schedule if they so desire. The idea is that they would have extra allowance for the scheduling of their own personal time activities (e.g., doctor appointments). However, a number of employees have tried to use scheduled work hours for such personal time activities, not realizing (or not caring about) the strain that it can put on scheduling and the performance of the service center.

You recently attended a leadership development workshop that stressed the value of being more of a participative leader. As a result of the workshop, you began to wonder if you should try to be more involving in your decision-making when it comes to things like setting work standards or scheduling. It is now the end of spring, and you will need to attend to summer vacation scheduling, something for which you have much experience in the past. In prior years, you have been very concerned about people taking vacations at the same time, more senior workers wanting to usurp authority by demanding only certain times for their vacation (even if they have not been performing especially well), and so forth. Accordingly, you have simply set the summer vacation schedule yourself, and people have come to expect you to do so. But as a result of the workshop, you are now questioning your autocratic approach. Should you now allow some degree of input from employees; should you allow them into the decision-making process as equal partners; or should you even just delegate the task of determining the unit’s vacation schedule out to them as a team?

Endnotes

1. Throughout this chapter, we will generally use the term situational approaches to leadership. Other similar terms have also been used by various writers on the topic of leadership, such as contingency leadership. In essence, these terms are synonymous and interchangeable.

2. It should be noted that a number of years ago, the leadership scholar Fred Fiedler put forth an inflexible approach based on the favorableness of the situation. While receiving some support for his research, the

SAGE © 2020 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Books

Page 18 of 19 SAGE Books - Leadership for Organizations

practical implications of his work are not very straightforward. Thus, we do not cover his theory here. But for more information on the work of Fiedler, including a critique, see Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed., pp. 225–228). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

3. The path-goal theory of leadership has been around for some time now, although it is still relevant to effective leadership today. In this chapter, we build upon existing ways of thinking about path-goal leadership, but we take the concept further to reflect more modern times. For classic articles on this form of leadership, see House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leadership effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–338; and House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). A path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, Autumn, 81–97.

4. Disciplines such as economics, finance, and strategic management focus more on the nature or quality of actual decisions that are made by leaders.

5. See Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1982). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

6. Our presentation here is adapted from the following work: Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; and Vroom, V. H. (2000). Leadership and the decision-making process. Organizational Dynamics, 28(4), 82–94.

7. For more information on the process of leadership granting, see DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35, 627–647.

• situational approach to leadership

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781544360508.n5

SAGE © 2020 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Books

Page 19 of 19 SAGE Books - Leadership for Organizations