Leadership Essay

texts, although often without substantive critique. Academic leadership texts, however, frequently omit it entirely or position it as a footnote given its near total lack of empirical support (Graeff, 1983, 1997; Thompson & Vecchio, 2009; Yukl, 2013). To complicate things, the evolution of situational leadership reads like a bad episode of reality television—shifting claims, altered premises, a split between the creators' approaches to and uses of the concept, and the equivalent of academic throwdowns challenging the legitimacy of the concept. So, why include it in this text? Situational leadership persists as a popular tool for teaching and explaining leadership across disciplines. Indeed, the terminology of situational leadership seems to have slipped into the language of how leadership is informally described even when it is not tied explicitly to the theory itself. Despite being deeply flawed, situational leadership has a definitive influence on the informal theories people hold.

Overview The premise of situational leadership is that there is no single “best” way to lead and that to accomplish goals leaders must adapt their behaviors to meet followers' needs under varying contextual conditions (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Nelson, 1993; Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 2013; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969; Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 2013). Leaders' behaviors fall along two continua: supportive and directive. If these sound familiar, they should. They mirror the task and relational metacategories advanced by style leadership, along with the ways in which the continua interact as outlined by the Leadership Grid. What situational leadership adds is consideration of how the context shapes followers' needs, which are framed as a function of their development (i.e., varying levels of commitment and competence). Follower development, in turn, dictates the leader style that should be employed to maximize leadership outcomes.

Although situational leadership represents a fairly straightforward approach, explaining the specifics can be tricky because its authors have generated multiple versions—and when I say multiple versions I mean lots and lots of versions. For the sake of space and clarity, we will use Situational Leadership II (Blanchard et al., 2013), but let me walk through a few important elements of how we even get to this version.

Whose Theory Is It Anyway?

Hersey and Blanchard (1969) codeveloped the original situational leadership theory along with early revisions. However, the two parted intellectual paths in the late 1970s … sort of. They continued to publish a management text together that features situational leadership (Hersey et al., 2013) but also developed separate consulting firms and independent revisions of the concept. Hersey's work is now referred to as the situational leadership model, while Blanchard and colleagues' is called Situational Leadership II. Confused yet?

What's This Based On?

Situational leadership's major contributions were theoretically justified using Korman's (1966) proposition that there may be a curvilinear relationship between task and relational

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:36:25.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

behaviors and leader effectiveness. In other words, simply increasing the frequencies of both task and relational behaviors may not result in more effective leadership. Said another way, the Sound/Team leadership style advocated for in the Leadership Grid may in fact not always be the one best way to lead. Hersey and Blanchard (1969) suggested this nonlinear relationship between task and relational behaviors and leader effectiveness occurred because of situational influences associated with followers' needs. However, scholars challenged the use of Korman's proposition as a theoretical justification, and it was removed from later explanations (Graeff, 1983, 1997) and replaced with a justification based on “conversations with our colleagues at Blanchard Training and Development, Inc., our own experience, and the ideas managers have shared with us” (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 1985, p. 7). Hmmm … that sounds legit!

This Is a Theory … I Mean a Model?

Situational leadership was originally labeled a theory. The creators later dropped the word theory, eventually replacing it with the term model. Graeff (1997) points out with absolutely no hint of sarcasm that this represented “a fourstep evolution of the theoretical arguments or foundations for Situational Leadership” (p. 163) from (1) relatively precise but problematic to (2) theoretically ambiguous to (3) atheoretical and based on informal theories to (4) the realization that it is in actuality … a model. Are you pizzled yet?

Does Terminology Even Matter Anyway?

Shifting labels across versions of situational leadership lack detailed explanations, making it difficult to track content and arguments. Of primary concern is the description of followers' needs, which reflect one of the major contributions the theory purportedly offers. Initial conceptualizations referred to this as follower “maturity” and measured it on a unidirectional continuum from low to high. Maturity was later segmented into two bidirectional continua labeled job maturity (i.e., ability) and psychological maturity (i.e., willingness). These were later changed with the labels “development” replacing maturity and “competence” and “commitment” replacing job maturity and psychological maturity. Along with the changes in labels, the actual continua changed in recent versions and are no longer described as linear. Oh, and almost all of the other elements of the model were renamed. Would you be surprised at this point if I shared that all of this did little to resolve critiques regarding the lack of clarity in the theory… I mean model?

Applying the Concept Blanchard et al. (2013) asserted that three learnable skills are involved in enacting situational leadership. These include setting clear goals, diagnosing followers' relative development related to assigned goals, and matching leader styles to followers' developmental levels. Figure 5.2 provides a visual representation of the model and its component parts.

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:36:25.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

FIGURE 5.2 Situational leadership II Leadership and the One Minute Manager, Updated Edition by Ken Blanchard, Patricia Zigarmi, Drea Zigarmi. Copyright © 1985, 2013 by Blanchard Management Corporation. Reprinted by permission of HarperCollins Publishers.

Assessing followers' development lies at the heart of situational leadership. Blanchard et al. (1993) described development as “the extent to which a person has mastered the skills necessary for the task at hand and has developed a positive attitude toward the task” (p. 27).

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:36:25.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

This is assessed based on a follower's varying levels of competence and commitment. Competence refers to the degree to which a follower has the requisite knowledge and skills needed to accomplish a goal. Commitment reflects both the confidence individuals have that they can complete the task effectively without significant oversight and their degree of interest and enthusiasm for the task. When these are triangulated, a fourpoint continuum ranging from developing to developed (congrats … you've finally made it, my friend!) emerges (see Figure 5.2):

The Enthusiastic Beginner (D1): Reflects low competence levels, but high commitment; motivation is likely high because the scope of learning necessary for the task is still unknown.

The Disillusioned Learner (D2): Reflects low to some competence and low commitment; motivation may have dropped and frustration set in regarding the difficulty of the task, but knowledge and skills are beginning to accrue.

The Capable But Cautious Contributor (D3): Reflects moderate to high competence, but variable commitment levels; demonstrated knowledge and skills to accomplish the task, but a lack of confidence can cause doubt; alternatively, the follower may become bored, also lowering motivation.

The SelfReliant Achiever (D4): Possesses the requisite knowledge and skills along with selfconfidence and enthusiasm for the task.

Enacting situational leadership involves identifying the leader style that best matches the developmental level of a follower on a given task. Leader styles reflect “the way you work with someone… It's how you behave, over time, when you're trying to influence the performance of others, as perceived by them” (Blanchard et al., 2013, p. 12). Four specific leader styles align with followers' development levels. These are visible along the performance curve in Figure 5.2:

Directing (S1): Highly directive behavior coupled with lower levels of supportive behaviors; provision of clear instructions about what needs to be done and how to do it; highly structured with regular feedback and monitoring of progress.

Coaching (S2): Both highly directive and supportive; clear structure and direction along with a strong investment in the individual; begins to engage the follower as an active contributor to the process as well as in decision making.

Supporting (S3): Lower levels of directive behaviors coupled with highly supportive behaviors; shared decision making; role becomes that of facilitator to support followers, using their knowledge and skills to accomplish goals.

Delegating (S4): Lower levels of both directive and supportive behaviors; locus of control shifts to the follower for decision making and task direction; focus on monitoring and offering support and growth opportunities.

The leader's style should progress over time from directing through coaching and supporting to delegating as much as possible, and this list reflects that order. This progression is based on

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:36:25.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

the belief that followers can and will increase their competence and commitment when properly supported, which in turn allows the leader to evolve styles.

Notable changes between early versions of situational leadership and more recent incarnations influence how it is enacted. First, Blanchard et al. (2013) explicitly state the importance of treating followers as individuals rather than a homogenous collective. This means that the specification of a follower's development happens through a dyadic relationship between individual leader and individual follower. Second, they are clear that a follower's development level is associated with a particular task and can vary between tasks. As such, a directing style might be necessary for one area of responsibility but a supporting style could be most effective with the same person in another area of responsibility. Finally, they stress that enacting “situational leadership is not something you do to people. It's something you do with people… You look at people more as partners. You don't see them as subordinates” (pp. 101– 102). This positions diagnosing development as a mutual process rather than the simple labeling of followers based on perceptions. Again, these represent shifts from the original theory.

How Research Evolves the Concept Although research has been conducted on situational leadership, few studies appear in academic journals limiting the amount of credible insights regarding the model. Graeff (1983, 1997) offered perhaps the most biting critiques, arguing “the major problem confronting all of the versions is the continued lack of a sound theoretical foundation of the hypothesized relationships” (Graeff, 1997, p. 164). The few empirical studies of situational leadership that do exist largely call into question major components of the model. For example, Thompson and Vecchio (2009) found that matching followers who have high competence and high commitment with a leader style comprised of low directive and low supportive behaviors simply does not work. They go on to suggest that the only elements that appear accurate in the model are pairing new followers with leader styles that are higher in task behaviors and more experienced followers with styles that are more supportive, allowing for greater autonomy.

In the case of situational leadership, empirical research actually calls into question the legitimacy of the model rather than extending our understanding of it. Thompson and Vecchio (2009) argued that “without compelling empirical evidence of the validity of SLT's principles, it is difficult to endorse the use of the model in leadership training programs” (p. 845). Note here that they are referring to a lack of compelling evidence to support the original version, the contemporary version, and even the base principles informing the theory. They go on to assert that “those who instruct others within leadership training programs should, as a matter of professional honesty, advise their trainees that SLT still lacks a strong empirical grounding, and that its alluring character should not substitute for the absence of empirical substantiation” (p. 846).

WrapUp Situational leadership advances the importance of attending to task and relational meta

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:36:25.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

categories when enacting leadership, along with asserting that there is no one “right” way to lead. However, serious concerns arise regarding its continued promulgation given major faults in its theoretical grounding as well as empirical evidence that calls into question its core premises. This begs the question of why it continues to have influence. I have to believe that this has to do, at least in part, with its seductive and alluring practicality. Table 5.4 identifies a number of strengths and weaknesses associated with situational leadership.

TABLE 5.4 Strengths and weaknesses of situational leadership theory

Strengths Weaknesses

Advocates that there is no single “right” or universal way to lead

Offers prescriptive advice that is both intuitive and appealing in its practicality

Takes into account the influence of contextual factors such as follower development

Major concerns regarding theoretical foundations and numerous alterations

Empirical evidence does not substantiate and in some cases refutes assumptions

In no way addresses a leader's own development in the leadership process

Making Connections

If empirical evidence disproves the accuracy of situational leadership, why is it so often incorporated into people's understandings of leadership? How might this reflect dominant stocks of knowledge, ideology/hegemony, and social location?

What stands out as useful about situational leadership? What do you think needs to be addressed in the deconstruction and reconstruction processes?

PATHGOAL THEORY Pathgoal leadership marks a third inflection point in the cluster of theories emphasizing production and effectiveness. It builds on the affirmation that there is no one “right” way to lead while directing greater attention to the complexity of influences that emerge from considering how leaders, subordinates, and situational factors interact to shape leadership outcomes. It does this by more closely examining the role of subordinate motivation. Interestingly, pathgoal leadership is often framed as a theory that has reached its apogee in terms of utility. It holds a unique position in the literature as simultaneously appreciated for its historical importance and its limitations. Theory is rarely allowed to expire or transition to new forms even when empirical research fails to support its propositions. This positions pathgoal theory as an important source for learning not just about incremental advances in understanding leader behaviors but also about the approach to and treatment of theory by a

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:36:25.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

discipline.

Overview House (1971) formalized pathgoal theory based on early conceptual work by Georgopolous, Mahoney, and Jones (1957) and Evans (1968, 1970), with two revisions of the theory occurring based on emerging empirical evidence and shifting trends in the leadership literature (House, 1996; House & Mitchell, 1974). The central proposition of pathgoal theory is that leaders must “engage in behaviors that complement subordinates' environments and abilities in a manner that compensates for deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction and… performance” (House, 1996, p. 323). How leaders do this is what makes the theory unique as it infuses considerations from expectancy theory, which addresses the role of motivation in decision making (Vroom, 1964). Expectancy theories suggest individuals are motivated based on the belief that a particular behavior will result in a specific outcome and the degree to which that outcome is attractive.

Thus, effective leaders enact behaviors that create pathways linking subordinate effort to goal attainment and goal attainment to attractive extrinsic rewards (see Figure 5.3). In essence, leader behaviors serve as points of intervention to increase motivation and the subsequent quality of effort by “increasing personal payoffs to subordinates for workgoal attainment, and making the paths to these payoffs easier to travel by clarifying it, reducing roadblocks and pitfalls, and increasing the opportunities for personal satisfaction en route” (House, 1971, p. 324).

FIGURE 5.3 Motivational functions of leader behaviors

Applying the Concept House (1996) was initially clear that pathgoal theory should be applied only to dyadic supervisory relationships in which one actor holds a formal authority role and the other is a

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:36:25.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

subordinate. It should not be applied to a leader's influence over entire teams or organizations. Nor is it designed for use in informal leadership relationships, collective leadership processes, or leadership focused on change. This creates narrow boundaries for the theory, which in many ways is refreshing when compared with how frequently theories are overextended and positioned as providing answers to any and all leadership challenges. Here we have a theory specifically designed for use in supervisory relationships. Figure 5.4 offers an adapted visual of the theory.

FIGURE 5.4 Adapted representation of pathgoal theory of leadership

Pathgoal theory extends beyond the two traditional metacategories of task and relational behaviors to also include participative and achievementoriented behaviors. Each of these behaviors plays a role in shaping subordinate motivation and is described in the section that follows:

Directive: Provides structure to the work experience so expectations and pathways to work goal attainment are clear.

Supportive: Displays concern for the needs of a subordinate and contributes to a psychologically safe work environment that is friendly and communicates concern.

Participative: Involves the subordinate in key work processes and decision making.

AchievementOriented: Promotes a culture of excellence by offering challenging opportunities and expressing confidence in the subordinate's ability to meet goals.

How subordinates interpret the above leader behaviors is mediated by five intervening Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:36:25.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

motivational variables (House, 1996). These include (1) the relative attractiveness of the leader behavior to subordinates, (2) the degree to which subordinates believe that their efforts will result in goal attainment, (3) the relative attractiveness of attaining goals to begin with, (4) the degree to which subordinates believe that goal attainment will result in attractive rewards, and (5) the availability of said rewards. If this sounds like a lot to take into consideration when choosing leader behaviors, it is. But there's more…

Pathgoal theory also takes into account two types of situational factors that influence motivation (House, 1996; House & Mitchell, 1974). This includes a wide range of subordinate characteristics hypothesized to shape how leader behaviors are received. These include degree of affiliation, need for control, desire for structure, achievementorientation, and self efficacy for goal attainment. For example, a subordinate with low selfefficacy might be motivated to increased effort by more directive and supportive behaviors, whereas a subordinate with a strong internal locus of control may be motivated by participatory leader behaviors. Characteristics of the job and environment are also identified as important situational influences on subordinate motivation. These include the degree of job ambiguity, how satisfying the job is, authority influences, environmental conditions, work unit dynamics, and external demands, just to name a few. All of these add complexity to determining leader behaviors and their effects on key leadership outcomes such as subordinate acceptance of the leader, satisfaction, and performance.

Implementing pathgoal theory requires the leader to understand how subordinates' perceptions and situational factors mediate the interpretation of behaviors. This in turn influences subordinate motivational levels and the quality of effort extended toward goal attainment. Thus, selecting leader behaviors in a supervisory relationship has the potential to raise motivation, lower it, or cause it to stagnate. Motivation is critical because it directly affects subordinate quality of effort and resultant leadership outcomes. In other words, the leader's job is to clarify pathways between effort, goal attainment, and reward by enacting behaviors that provide whatever is missing from the situation based on characteristics of the subordinate, the task, and the organizational context in which they are nested.

How Research Evolves the Concept Empirical research demonstrates support for some elements of pathgoal theory while calling others into question. This includes support for the role environmental characteristics play in shaping perceptions of leader behaviors and leadership outcomes (House, 1971). Research also suggests that supportive behaviors contribute to subordinate satisfaction above and beyond directive behaviors alone (Schriesheim & Neider, 1996).

Strangely, though, most research on pathgoal theory seems to have completely left out the core dimension that makes it such a meaningful inflection point in the study of leader behaviors: motivational influences. This may be a function of the complexity of the theory and incredible difficulty of measuring so many dynamically interacting variables in a single study (Schriesheim & Neider, 1996). Additionally, House (1996) acknowledged that the study of motivation changed dramatically since the inception of expectancy theory and that “we have

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:36:25.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

come to realize that individuals are not nearly as rational” as expectancy theory suggests (p. 332). This not only suggests difficulty in the measurement of motivation, but that how path goal theory conceptualizes motivation may in and of itself be flawed. It presumes rational action, when even under ideal circumstances people often make less than rational choices.

The final revision of pathgoal theory (House, 1996) articulated hope that it might stimulate further empirical testing and improvement of the theory. Unfortunately, that did not happen. In fact, House further complicated an already complex theory by (1) extending it to a whopping 26 propositions, (2) increasing the types of leadership behaviors from four to eight, and (3) shifting the focus to include organizational and work unit outcomes. Furthermore, I was unable to identify a single research article that specifically tested pathgoal theory in any of the major leadership journals since House's final revision. For this reason, Schriesheim and Neider's (1996) concern that “pathgoal theory is in grave danger of being prematurely buried (or, at the least, of being ignored and dying of malnutrition)” (p. 319) now seems prescient.

WrapUp Pathgoal theory represents an important inflection point in the study of leader behaviors, but is a concept that has reached its threshold in terms of utility. It is most valued for its deeper exploration of motivational influences on leadership, expansion of leader behaviors beyond just task and relational metacategories, and attention to more complex situational factors. Scholars also credit pathgoal theory for its important role in shaping future theories (Ayman & Adams, 2011; Evans, 1996; House, 1996). This situates pathgoal as a historical reference point, but also a theory from which important lessons can be gleaned about explicitly stating limitations and acknowledging when it is time to move on to other considerations. Table 5.5 identifies additional strengths and weaknesses.

TABLE 5.5 Strengths and weaknesses of pathgoal theory

Strengths Weaknesses

Increased attention toward motivational needs of subordinates

Clearly articulated purpose for use in authoritybased, supervisory relationships

Offers prescriptive advice on leader behaviors and how they shape outcomes

Unable to be substantiated by empirical research

Presumes individuals' motivations are rational, which is not always the case

Fails to account for situational factors associated with social location

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:36:25.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .