LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
Assignment Title: Hersey-Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Theory
Course: CHMN 699 - Internship
Student: Kristine Sage
Date: January 29, 2022
Professor: Dr. Joel Breidenbaugh
Hersey-Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Theory
Different situations demand different leadership approaches. An intuitive model of leadership is
one developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard in 1969, and has been used in over 400 of the
Fortune 500 companies training programs (1993). Unlike Mouton & Blake’s Grid Theory or
Fiedler’s model, the Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory (SLT) proposes that the
leader adjusts her or her style to meet the particular situation and needs of the follower. Hersey-
Blanchard assumes followers are at different developmental levels, and recommends treating
each follower differently. Therefore, the model requires flexibility in the leader’s style after an
evaluation of the follower’s competence and commitment. The process for determining the
situational leadership behavior (of the leader) includes three elements:
The readiness (maturity) level that followers exhibit in performing a specific task,
function, or objective.
The amount of guidance and direction (task behavior) a leader gives.
The amount of socio-emotional support (relationship behavior) a leader gives.
Two main leadership activities are recognized in this model: directive (establishing/clarifying
goals, making deadlines, establishing proper procedure, determining evaluation, all often done in
a one-way communication mode). The second activity is supportive (with frequent two-way
communication including problem solving, asking for input, praising, sharing information, and
listening). Using these two activities, a grid can be formed to produce four types of leadership
styles:
Directive/Telling – gives specific directions; close supervision (high directive/low
supportive)
Coaching/Selling – explains decisions; provides opportunity for clarifying (high
directive/high supportive)
Supporting/Participating – solicits input; shares decision-making (high supportive/low
directive)
Delegating- turns over responsibility for decisions and completion (low supportive/low
directive)
Developmental levels of followers focus on competence and commitment to the task, not in
labeling employees for any other reason. The highest level follower has the skills to do the job
and the motivation to complete it. However, this situational model is based on the idea that
followers move backward and forward on the competence and commitment continuum, or what
the authors call maturity. To complete the model’s recommended leadership behavior, correct
diagnosis of the employee’s developmental level is critical. Criticisms leveled at this model
include Hersey and Blanchard’s unclear definition of the maturity or developmental levels, and
the impracticality of diagnosing and adapting leader style for one-to-one relationships with each
employee or follower. Many folks reading the above list assume that the coaching leader (high
directive/high supporting) is automatically “best.” That is not the point of the Hersey-Blanchard
model. Instead, the leader must use all four styles depending on the individual follower’s needs
and maturity.
Implications for church leadership
The best research in leadership theory often springs from a business setting where the leader is
the boss and the follower an employee. In the church, however, the leader is sometimes the
employee and the followers are the boss. Churches are volunteer organizations where the
volunteers often employ or elect their leader. In some churches, the followers actually vote on
their pastor every year or two to determine if they would like to keep him or her. This
complicates the adaptation of leadership theory to the church, when the former is derived from
leader-employee models.
Nevertheless, a church leader is responsible to deploy the volunteers properly. Christian theology
certainly supports the notion of a leader serving the followers and not “lording over them like the
Gentiles do” (Matthew 20:25-28). And there is the notion of diverse spiritual gifts and the widely
accepted idea of “many members—one body.” These concepts nudge the church leader to be sensitive
to an individual’s gifts and needs. Thus, the Hersey-Blanchard model may fit the thinking in a church
setting, especially where a servant leader approach is preferred for theological and polity reasons.
The model especially relates to deploying and placing volunteers in a church setting. Some of the
implications of the Hersey- Blanchard model for church leadership may be:
Church leaders should adapt their personal style of leading to each individual’s maturity
and competence, producing a highly personalized style of leadership. In this model, the
leader adapts to each individual rather than expecting the individuals to learn the leader’s
style and adapt to it.
Pastors and other church leaders must develop the sensitivity to their follower’s
competencies and commitment in order to assess the style the follower will respond to
best.
The highly individualistic style of leadership of the Hershey-Blanchard model requires
longevity of the leader—time to assess the maturity and competence levels of the
followers, and adaptation of the leader’s style to each follower.
The model suggests followers sometimes move back and forth on the competence and
commitment continuum, meaning the particular style fitting a follower may be a moving
target. Thus, the leader cannot rely on a one-time assessment, but must continue in a
highly relational, close monitoring of the follower and “what make him/her tick.”
Intuitive assessment and adaptation is a constant duty.
This model especially relates to full time staff in a church under the direction of a senior
pastor. Using this model, he or she will discern if the staffer,
requires high direction
but does not need much support;
responds best to a constant coaching, including lots of
formative direction and continual support;
works best with high support but does not need much direction; d) or is able to do the work
without much support or direction.
These, of course, are the same questions to be asked of volunteer followers in the church.
The bottom line of the Hersey-Blanchard model is for leaders to know the followers. In
the church, this reflects the biblical notion that a good shepherd should know the sheep.
Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness
Path-Goal theory is a situational leadership approach developed by House and Mitchell (1974).
It focuses on how leaders motivate followers to accomplish goals and enhance performance and
satisfaction. The leader in Path-Goal theory helps the followers set goals, then assists them in
developing a path to achieving their goals. Instead of recommending just the task/relationship
actions for leaders, this theory recommends four behaviors that best meet the subordinate’s needs
and will therefore more likely produce effective leadership. One or another of the four behaviors
are employed, depending on the follower’s needs. Therefore, a leader needs to be skillful in all
four behaviors:
Directive – leader tends to give explicit expectations; initiating structure; “telling” style
Supportive – leader treats followers as equals; consideration behavior; approachable
style
Participative – leader tends toward shared decision-making; collaborative behavior
Achievement-oriented – leader sets challenging goals; shows confidence they are capable to
meet them
Based on assumptions from Expectancy Theory (Vroom, 1964), this model explains how
behavior of the leader causes expectancies/motivations in the subordinate that create effort and
satisfaction. The rationale is that followers will perform better if they think they are capable, and
if they perceive the work will get results and be worth the effort.
In choosing which of the leadership behaviors to use, two variables influence the choice: the
subordinate’s characteristics, and the characteristics of the task. The leader behavior is
contingent on these characteristics, making this a situational leadership approach. No one
leadership behavior works for motivating every person and the leader supplies what is missing to
motivate the follower. After this initial assessment of the follower and the task, the leader then
helps the follower define goals and then reach them in the most efficient way. Leaders may even
adapt their styles with an individual during the completion of a task, if one part of the job needs a
different motivation from another.
Although it is a complex and sometimes confusing theory, it reminds leaders to continually think
of their central purposes as a leader: to help define goals, clarifies paths to get there, remove
obstacles that may exist, and provide support and encouragement for achievement of goals.
Most of the responsibility is on the leader however, and there is little emphasis identified for the
follower. Some argue this kind of leadership may be counterproductive over time in that it may
promote dependency on the leader.
Implications for church leadership
All situational leadership theories nudge church leaders to think more about the needs and
motivational triggers of their people, in relation to their own style and needs. All of the
situational theories start by listening and assessing the followers, and not with the leader who
summarily says, “That’s the kind of leader I am—live with it” (even if under his or her breath).
Christian teaching tells us we are to be other-oriented and a sign of spiritual maturity is starting
with others and not me. Thus, some form of servant leadership mindset should prevail in the
church of the Jesus Christ. It’s the kenosis view of Jesus presented in Philippians 2.
Path-goal theory calls Christian leaders to load all four leadership behaviors in their quiver and
to fire the arrow needed for the particular situation or follower. This other-oriented approach to
leadership seems to fit well with Christian teaching and the lifestyle of Jesus Christ. Some of the
implications of Path-Goal theory for church leaders may be:
Church leaders (especially pastors) should avoid a focus on “discovering my style” of
leadership in order to announce it and expect everyone else in the church to adapt to their
style. Mature and effective leaders develop multiple styles of leadership, adapting them
to the situation and follower. This approach isn’t just being a good leader—it is being a
good Christian.
Church leaders likely feel more natural with one of the four Path-Goal behaviors over the
others. Discovering this behavior preference may assist the leader in expanding his or
her “repertoire” in order to develop those less preferred or practiced.
Path-Goal theory proposes a role as leader that helps the followers define their goals, then
assists the followers in developing a path toward the goal of achievement. This other-
oriented theory puts the leader in a servant role, with the focus on the follower. It is a
stranger to the notion of the leader setting all the goals while “up on the mountain” to
come down later to “cast the vision” to the followers. This model has the leader enabling
the followers to define their goals, then develop a path to achieve them.
Denominational polity and tradition may be a factor in favoring one leader behavior over
another. Highly congregational forms of government might expect a participative and
supportive leader. Churches with Episcopal or hierarchical polity might expect a
directive approach, while many independent mega-church boards might prefer a leader
who practices achievement-oriented behaviors exclusively.
Church leaders may need to purposely resist any leader-dependency that might develop if
using this model of leadership.
Church leaders who examine Path-Goal’s four leadership behaviors often quickly attempt
to rank them as bad-good-better-best.” House and Mitchell’s Path-Goal theory rejects
that notion. Directive leadership is not automatically bad and achievement-oriented
leadership automatically good. In Path-Goal theory, all four behaviors are good,
depending on the situation. The leader adjusts to the situation, using the behavior that fits
the person and the task.
Leadership Substitutes Theory
Kerr & Jermier (1978) stress the importance for leaders to recognize that there are factors in the
subordinate, the task, or the organization which can make leader’s action unnecessary. These
factors are referred to as leadership substitutes. That is, these factors become a substitute for
leader behaviors. Such factors can make it impossible for leadership to make a difference. For
example, the authors found that formalizing procedures in a professional setting negates the need
for leaders to intervene. People in this situation are more satisfied if leaders do not give further
directions. In another study, they found that subordinates’ ability, professional orientation, and
desire for autonomy make any directives from the leader counterproductive.
Two broad situational categories should be considered: any formal reward systems already in the
organization, and the intrinsically-motivating aspects of the work itself. Task and/or relationship
orientation of the leader are also a part of this theory. For example, socially supportive behaviors
by a leader are neutralized by close-knit work groups. Likewise, a well-trained, long-
experienced employee doesn’t need a task-oriented leader to structure the task.
These and other factors, or leadership substitutes, make leadership behavior not only
unnecessary but perhaps impossible. When such conditions exist, they will influence the
follower’s satisfaction and performance, and knowledge of such modifiers, neutralizers, and
substitutes should modify the leader’s behavior. Otherwise, some categories of leadership
behavior may be seen redundant or even an irritant in the workplace or organization.
References
Blanchard, K. H., Zigarmi, P., & Zigarmi, D. (1985). Leadership and the one minute manager:
Increasing effectiveness through situational leadership. New York: William Morrow.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1993). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing
human resources (6th Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
House, R. J., & Mitchell, R. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary
Business, 3, 81-97.
Northouse, P. G. (2001). Leadership: Theory and practice (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
