|
|
Situational Leadership
Taking the fundamentals of Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid, Hersey and Blanchard portray the relationship between task behaviour and relationship behaviour as being largely situation-specific.
Task Behaviour is the extent to which the leader provides direction for people: telling them what to do, when to do it, where and when to do it and how to do it. It means setting goals for them and defining those roles.
Relationship Behaviour is the extent to which the leader engages in two-way communication with people: providing support, encouragement, "psychological stroking", and facilitative behaviour. It means actively listening to people and supporting their efforts.
Traditionally, relationship-oriented behaviour has been described as tending towards "Democratic", whilst task-oriented behaviour has been described as "Authoritarian". This gave the impression that the latter was harsh, unyielding, and somehow unacceptable to any right-thinking human being. The former, however, gave an impression of sensitivity, indecisiveness and ineffectuality.
The reality is that it depends. It depends upon the level of maturity of the group, it depends upon the appropriateness of the desired behaviour to the objectives of the group, it depends upon the repertoire of the leader and of the members of the group.
The diagram in the attached PDF documents (click on download below) suggests the relationship between task-relevant maturity and the appropriate leadership styles to be used whilst the group members move from immaturity towards maturity.
Each of the four styles - "telling', "selling", participating" and "delegating", is a combinantion of task and relationship behaviour. Hersey and Blanchard's research suggested that there is an appropriate leadership style for each level of "follower" maturity. Hence, the positioning of the four maturity "categorisations" below each leadership style in the above Figure.
"Telling" is for low maturity. When people are both unable and unwilling to take responsibility to do something, they are not competent nor are they confident. This unwillingness is often the result of insecurity regarding the required task. In such a case, a directive, or "telling" style, in which the instructions are clear and direct is probably the most likely style to succeed. To be too supportive in such a situation might well be seen as too permissive, lacking in strength, and even rewarding of poor performance.
"Selling" is for low to moderate maturity. People who are unable but willing to take on responsibility are confident but lack the skills at this time. A "selling" approach will provide the directive behaviour that is necessary because of lack of ability, but also supportive behaviour will reinforce their willingness. By using two-way communication, the leader tries to get the group to buy into desired behaviours. Followers at this maturity level will usually go along with a decision if they understand the reason for a decision and if their leader can offer some help and direction.
"Participating" is for moderate to high maturity. Here, people are able but unwilling to do what the leader wants. Their unwillingness is often a factor of their lack of confidence or insecurity. If, however, they are competent but unwilling, then the problem is more motivational that one of security. In either event, the leader will need to open up dialogue with them, supporting their followers' efforts to use their abilities. So a supportive, non¬directive participating style has a good chance of succeeding. The leader and the followers share the decision making. The leader's main role if to facilitate and communicate.
"Delegating" is for high maturity. here, people are both willing and able, or confident to take on the responsibility. A low-profile delegating style, providing little direction and with no real need for support, has the highest chance of success at this maturity level. The leader may well spot the problem, but it is up to the mature followers to carry out the plans. As they are psychologically mature, they don't need above average amounts of commu¬nication or supportive behaviour.
Hersey and Blanchard's research uses five dimensions to describe Task Behaviour and a further five to describe Relationship Behaviour.
They describe five indicators of behaviour, each corresponding to and typifying the task or relationship behaviour dimension.
Task behaviour dimension
Goal setting – specify the goals that people are to accomplish
Organising – organise people’s working arrangements
Setting time lines – lay down the time boundaries for team members
Directing – provide specific directions on how to do things for people
Controlling – specify and require regular reports on progress
Relationship behaviour dimension
Giving support – provide people with support and encouragement
Communicating – specify and require regular reporting on progress
Facilitating interactions – facilitate the relationships that the team members have with each other
Active listening – seek out and listen to people’s opinions and concerns
Providing feedback – feeding back to people perspectives on their accomplishments
It is, of course, possible for managers or, indeed, members of a team to assess the leadership style of their boss. Hersey and Blanchard asked samples of individuals to differentiate between high and low amounts of each leader behaviour.
A broad match of Maturity and Style can be made using the each of the four basic leadership styles. Managers and their team members can rate leadership style and maturity in the same instrument. So each can assess the other in terms of the leader's Relationship Behaviour (the support they give), and their Task Behaviour (the guidance they provide). Likewise, followers can be assessed in terms of their maturity in relation to the job (their ability to perform, as enabled by knowledge and skill), and their psychological maturity (their willingness to perform, as enabled by their confidence and commitment).
In other words, the effectiveness of our style as a leader is going to be determined by a dynamic interaction of situation variables. Our own professional understanding of the job, the organisation, the processes, our own repertoire of skills and techniques in responding to situations, and our own psychological maturity to enable us to seize the appropriate style for the given situation.
|
|
