Leadership Style and Situational Variables

LEADERSHIP AND SITUATIONAL VARIABLES
by
Course
Professor’s Name
Institution
Location of Institution
Date
Leadership and Situational Variables
While the concept of leadership has been known to humanity since time immemorial, no common definition has been established yet. Some scholars define leadership as “a process whereby individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (Northouse 2016, p.6). Others define it as the “ability to influence others, interpret situations, negotiate and debate their views, often in the face of opposition” (Gold et al. 2016, p.6). Based on these definitions, it can be deduced that leadership entails followership, influence, achievement of objectives, and deciphering of situations and the environment. The many definitions and views on leadership imply that “all forms of leadership are subjective and discursively constructed… are interpretive and tied to the social encounters of those involved” (Schedlitzki and Edwards 2014, p.7). This implies that leadership is different and varies from one group of people to another, based on their experiences. Many propositions on what makes a leader great have been put forward by scholars and theorists over the years. However, great leaders are those that can adapt and match a leadership style to the situation at hand. According to Northouse (2016, p.93), different situations have different demands, and it is the responsibility of the leader to adapt.
This paper aims to analyze how leadership is influenced by different situation and how a leader’s ability to adapt to the situation impacts his/her success and that of the followers. To clearly understand this concept, two leadership theories will be examined; the situational leadership theory and the contingency theory of leadership. The two theories will be compared and contrasted about leadership styles and situational variables. While both theories posit that different leadership styles are appropriate for different situations, they also reveal some differences, as will be explained in this paper. The path-goal theory will also be examined to determine how leadership style and the situation can be paired to increase the effectiveness of leadership and productivity of followers. Also, several cases of leaders who have successfully matched their leadership style to suit the situation will be explored and conclusions drawn from the empirical evidence.
The statement “leadership is about adapting leadership style to suit the situation” makes much sense given that in most cases, a leader has no control over the situation that organizations find themselves in. As such, it is evident that situations, rather than leaders themselves, influence the behavior and approaches that leaders have. According to DuBrin (2016, p.147) situations play a major role in leadership, thus influencing the ability of the leader to offer guidance to followers. First, the effectiveness of a leader is affected by factors beyond a leader’s control (p.147). This implies that despite the leadership style adopted by the leader, external factors can influence effectiveness. The business field is competitive and is influenced by the actions of competitors. Thus, to effectively offer guidance to followers, leaders must be flexible enough to adapt to the changing environment and consequent needs of followers. Second, the outcomes of a leader’s behavior are highly affected by the situation at hand (p.147). A certain leadership style might be effective in a certain situation and ineffective in a different situation. Therefore, sticking to one leadership style will influence the outcome of every situation and it is up to the leader to analyze the situation and determine which leadership style would be most effective given the circumstances. Third, leadership style is also influenced by the organizational structure whereby certain leadership style will only be effective in certain types of organizational structure (DuBrin 2016, p.148). Thus, every organization demands certain leadership style and leaders who have served in more than one company understand this notion. Steve Jobs is an example of a leader who understood this concept well after leading two companies, Pixar and Apple. Jobs adopted a hands-on leadership style at Apple and a hands-off leadership style at Pixar, yet his criticism was more appreciated at Pixar than at Apple (D'Onfro, 2015). This indicates that Pixar and Apple had different needs of organizational leadership and Steve Jobs applied a leadership style that was best suited for each. Finally, leaders’ behavior is highly influenced by external situations rather than leaders character and traits (DuBrin 2016, p.147). A leader’s behavior is at times dictated by what is happening around them, which pushes them to act in some way. Starbuck's CEO was forced to act with some sense of urgency after a racial profiling incident. According to Hyken (2018), the company had to close a number of their stores to offer training on anti-racial biases, a decision that would have otherwise not been made if the circumstances were different. At times, leaders are forced to adjust their attitudes and behavior in order to influence followers and optimize outcomes.
Situational Theory of Leadership
This theory was first proposed by Blanchard and Hersey in 1969 and posits that leaders have to adapt their behaviors based on the needs of their followers’ in order to successfully influence them (Dugan 2017, p.126). This implies that followers’ needs change depending on the situation and a leader has to assess these needs to come up with a suitable leadership style. The premise of the situational theory is based on the behavior of the leader regarding task-orientation and relationship orientation, and the readiness and willingness of the followers to achieve the set objectives (Carroll et al. 2015, p.54). Thus, aside from the leader being able to adapt, the followers must also be willing to listen and follow the leader’s guidance. Otherwise, the completion of tasks will be unsuccessful. Based on the situation, the leader has to examine the abilities of the followers to complete their tasks and then decide which leadership style is suitable. A situational model was developed to help leaders match their followers’ needs with a convenient style. The model is based on two aspects; leadership style and follower readiness/ development.
Leadership Style
Based on this model, four different leadership styles are influenced by four different situations (Humphrey 2014, p.152). The first leadership style (S1) is referred to as the telling style. This style involves giving directives to followers. The style is a “high task, low relationship” leadership where the leader closely monitors the followers (Humphrey 2014, p.152). The leader is task-oriented and does not offer the followers emotional support because the directives offered do not allow room for discussion or interaction. The second leadership style (S2) is referred to as the selling style. Leaders using this style not only give their followers directives but they also provide them with emotional support (Humphrey 2014, p.152). The leader has to “sell” their ideas and goals to the followers, and as such, constant and immense interaction is required to allow the leader to convince the followers into “buying” the ideas. Humphrey (2014, p.153) posits that the leader has to constantly encourage the followers to ensure high motivation and commitment to the ideas. Thus, leaders using this leadership style understand that the situation at hand requires a lot of convincing and lack of it can derail the attainment of goals. The third leadership style (S3) is referred to as the participating style. This style is characterized by low task and a high relationship between the leader and the followers (Humphrey 2014, p.153). Leaders using this style, therefore, allow the followers to participate in the process with minimum directives, hence the need for constant encouragement and praise. The decision-making process is thus more inclusive, and followers opinions and ideas are considered, unlike in the S1 style. The last style (S4) is referred to as the delegating style. In this style, leaders adopt a “low relationship, low task” approach and allow the followers to make decisions and take major responsibilities in accomplishing tasks (Humphrey 2014, p.153). This style is thus more hands-off than all other styles described above.
Follower Readiness
This aspect addresses the development and readiness of the followers in performing their tasks. It accounts for the level of competency, skills, and commitments of the followers in task accomplishment (Northouse 2016 p.96). Similar to the leadership style, the level of readiness is classified into four categories. The first category (D1) includes followers who lack the skills and competency to accomplish a task but are highly committed (Northouse 2016 p.96; Dugan 2017, p.128). Their high commitment stems from their excitement of a learning opportunity which will allow them to improve their skills and competencies. The second classification (D2) involves followers who have low commitment levels, although they have some degree of skills and abilities (Dugan 2017, p.128). Unlike the D1 followers, these classes of followers have been on the job for a while and have gained some level of experience, but “have lost some of their initial motivation about the job” (Northouse 2016 p.96). The loss of motivation is attributed to the fact that they have been on the job for a while and even though their experience has improved, they are still facing difficulties in performing their tasks. The third classification (D3) involves followers whose level of commitment varies, especially due to their level of confidence even though they have substantial skills and competencies (Northouse 2016 p.96). Doubting their ability to accomplish the task affects their motivation and can thus render their competencies useless, especially in the absence of an encouraging leader. The last classification (D4) involves followers who are highly competent and highly committed to accomplishing the task at hand. Dugan (2017, p.128) refers to them as “self-reliant achiever” whose competencies match their commitment and motivation. Their motivation and commitment can be attributed to the level of confidence they have that they will complete the task, which also increases their willingness to perform well.
For effective leadership under the situational leadership model, the leadership styles have to be matched with the level of followers’ readiness. Thus, the S1 style should be matched with the D1 category of followers. This is because D1 followers lack the skills and competencies to perform the task and as such, they require a hands-on directive from their leader (Humphrey 2014, p.152). The followers cannot offer insights into the process due to their limited abilities, making the leader the only capable individual in directing the task towards completion. S2 style of leadership should be matched with the D2 category of followers. This is because the level of commitment of the followers is limited, although they have some level of competence in comparison to D1 followers (Humphrey 2014, p.153). They need the encouragement of their leader to stay committed to the goals, and although they have some level of experience, they still need to be given directives to ensure that tasks are completed. S3 style should be matched with D3 followers. These followers have the necessary skills and abilities, but they lack confi...