A CRITICAL REVIEW OF SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORY

A CRITICAL REVIEW OF SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORY Situational Leadership Theory is arguably the most widely known and practiced theory of leadership and managerial effectiveness. In this essay, the origins and fundamentals of the theory are considered, as well as the available evidence that supports or contradicts the its validity. Background Situational Leadership Theory as presented by Hersey and Blanchard developed from the work of J. W. Reddins 3-Dimensional Management Style Theory. That theory hypothesizes the importance of a managers relationship orientation and task orientation in conjunction with effectiveness (Reddin 1967, 8). From the interplay of these dimensions, Reddin proposes a variety of management styles and theorizes that effectiveness as a manager can be explained as a function of matching a leaders style to a specific situation. However, his theory does not specify whether certain situational characteristics could be unequivocally incorporated into a predictive model (Vecchio 1987, 444). From Reddins suggestion that a leaders effectiveness varies according to style, Hersey and Blanchard proposed a life-cycle theory of leadership. According to this theory, degrees of task orientation and relationship orientation are to be examined in conjunction with the maturity of a follower or group of followers in order to account for leader effectiveness (Hersey and Blanchard 1969, 29). The main principle of the life-cycle theory is that as the level

2 of maturity in a follower increases, effective leader behavior will involve less task orientation as

3 well as less relationship orientation. However, this decline in both orientations is not straightforward. Hersey and Blanchard theorize that a low level of relationship orientation coupled with a high task orientation is ideal in the early stages of an employees tenure under leadership. As the employees maturity increases, the need for the leader to provide relational support increases while the need for task orientation declines. At the highest level of employee maturity, task and relationship orientation become superfluous to employee effectiveness (Hersey and Blanchard 1969, 29). Hersey, Blanchard and Johnson provide even greater precision to their theory in a text now in its eighth edition. In Management of Organizational Behavior: Leading Human Resources, the authors state that follower maturity can be separated into categories of high, moderate and low, and that the appropriate style of a leader can be summarized with the categories of telling, selling, participating or delegating in their relationships with employees (Hersey, Blanchard and Johnson 2001, 173-174). It is this most recent model that is considered below. Fundamentals The basic premise of Situational Leadership Theory is that there is no single superior way to influence another individual or group. Rather, the leadership style a person should use is dependent upon the degree to which an individual or group is ready to be influenced. The theory suggests four different leadership styles derived from the varying ways in which task behavior (the extent to which a leader engages in giving out work responsibilities) and relationship behavior (the degree to which a leader engages in communication with employees) intersect. The first leadership style is characterized by large amounts of task behavior and low amounts of relationship behavior. Style two is characterized by high levels of both task and relationship

4 behavior. Style three is characterized by high levels of relationship behavior and low levels of task behavior. The fourth leadership style is characterized by low amounts of both task and relationship behavior (Hersey, Blanchard and Johnson 2001, 174). Readiness in Situational Leadership Theory is defined as the degree to which a follower demonstrates the ability (those gifts or tools one brings) and willingness (the degree to which one is motivated) to complete a given task. The degree to which ability and willingness relate to one another determines the degree of readiness an individual or group has. The authors developed a continuum of readiness to explain the various ways in which willingness and ability interact. At level one, a follower essentially lacks the skill and desire to complete a given task. At level two, an employee is either unable but willing or confident. At level three, an individual is able to complete a task, but is unwilling or insecure. At level four, one is able, willing and confident (Hersey, Blanchard and Johnson 2001, 177-178). Hersey, Blanchard and Johnson created a model to help make the Situational Leadership Theory practical. As followers move from right to left on the development level continuum at the bottom of the model, the combinations of task and relationship behavior (that is, the leadership style) appropriate for a given situation begin to change. By identifying a point on that continuum that represents the degree to which a follower has developed and constructing a perpendicular line from that point to the place where it intersects with the bell curve in the leadership style model, one can get a relatively accurate idea about the most appropriate leadership style necessary for a given situation (Hersey, Blanchard and Johnson 2001, 181). Primarily, a level one readiness factor correlates with a style one leadership style, a level two readiness factor correlates with a style two leadership, and so on.

6 Theoretical Analysis Hersey, Blanchard and Johnson have found that Situational Leadership Theory has meaningful application in every kind of organizational setting, and that the concepts apply in any situation in which people are trying to influence the behavior of other people (Hersey, Blanchard and Johnson 2001, 197). By simply adapting some of the language of the theory to fit the appropriate circumstances, the authors boast wide application and success. The theory can help parents determine the appropriate parenting style, or help teachers better relate to individual students (Hersey, Blanchard and Johnson 2001, 198199). In any situation where there is an attempt to influence behavior, Situational Leadership Theory can be a helpful tool. Though widely known and used, Situational Leadership Theory may not have the final word on leadership and management. There are substantive questions raised in the literature regarding the theorys validity. Vecchio questions whether Situational Leadership Theory is a synthesis of a myriad of other insights from a variety of other theories. He points out that with this possible synthesis, one could argue that Hersey and his colleagues are not offering anything new or original with their theory. Nevertheless, one might also contend that Situational Leadership Theory is superior in that it focuses on critical features of behavior that have been previously identified (Vecchio 1987, 444-445). Claude Graeff gives a comprehensive critical review of the theory that attempts to discredit it at both the theoretical and pragmatic level. He first argues that the theory may have derived from a 1966 article by A. K. Korman who suggested the probability of a curvilinear relationship between dimensions of leader behavior and other variables (Graeff 1983, 285). Additionally, Graeff argues that presenting a four-dimensional model (task orientation,

7 relationship orientation, follower maturity, and effectiveness) in a two-dimensional graphic is a critical problem for the theory. This conceptual contradiction is partially illustrated by the fact that at readiness levels one and three, workers are said to be unwilling or unmotivated, while at readiness levels two and four, workers are said to be motivated. Graeff points out that these assertions are inconsistent with the linear (scale) exhibited in the model (Graeff 1983, 286). In the same critique, Graeff also points out the theorys tendency to overemphasize the ability dimension, and how this overemphasis can severely limit the usefulness of the theory (Graeff 1983, 287). If an employee has a low self-esteem that results in a low level of selfconfidence, his willingness will be virtually non-existent and his performance will be poor. According to the theory, this low level of maturity calls for high task, low relationship leadership that has coercion as its base. Yet the theorys authors do not advocate coercion for employees that are insecure or shy (Hersey, Blanchard and Johnson 2001, 210-214). It is reasonable to anticipate the need for high relationship in such a situation, yet the model suggests the opposite. Empirical Analysis Blanchard and colleagues report that over 50 dissertations, masters theses and research papers have been written using the improved LBA and LBA II (instruments associated with the theory) since 1983 (Blanchard, Zigami and Nelson 1993, 28). A review of the literature, however, supports many others who have concluded that published empirical analysis of Situational Leadership Theory has been rare and relatively conflicting regarding its accuracy. Hambleton and Gumperts 1982 study asked managers to randomly choose four subordinate employees to complete a survey instrument. Manager ratings of subordinate maturity were coded in conjunction with manager self-assessments of leadership style. The researchers identified matches and mismatches with this coding, with only 29% of the cases matching

8 (Hambleton and Gumpert 1982, 225-242). Vecchio points out that while these findings show some empirical support for the theory, a myriad of concerns regarding the structure and process of the study all but disqualify any support the study might give (Vecchio 1987, 445). In a study published in 1990, Blank, Weitzel and Green issued the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire to 27 university hall directors and a self-developed measure of maturity to 353 resident advisors. The hall directors provided performance ratings of resident advisors, and resident advisors completed subscales of the Job Description Index satisfaction measure. The researchers analysis examined interactions between subordinate maturity and leader style behavior dimensions in an attempt to predict subordinate job satisfaction and performance. The result revealed no support for Situational Leadership Theory (Blank, Weitzel and Green 1990, 579-597). In an attempt to validate Situational Leadership Theory, Vecchio issued a variety of instruments to 303 high school teachers and 14 high school principles. Vecchio found support for the theory in the low maturity condition, inconclusive support for the theory in the two levels of moderate maturity, and no support for predictions of Situational Leadership Theory for subordinates with high maturity (Vecchio 1987, 447-450). In a 1992 study, Norris and Vecchio distributed instruments to 91 nurses and their supervisors and found similar results to the 1987 study (Norris and Vecchio 1992, 336-339). A 1997 study of 332 university employees and 32 supervisors led Fernandez and Vecchio to conclude that Situational Leadership Theory has little descriptive utility (Fernandez and Vecchio 1997, 67). Finally, Cairns and associates sought to test the central hypothesis of Situational Leadership Theory that the interaction of leader behavior and employee readiness determines leader effectiveness. One hundred and fifty-one senior level employees of a large Fortune 100

9 company were tested. While the theory suggests that the right level of task behavior and relationship behavior should match the level of readiness maturity in followers, only 12% matched, providing no support for the Situational Leadership Theory (Cairns et al. 1998, 113116). In summary, empirical evidence provides only partial support for the principles of Situational Leadership Theory, and lends credence to the criticisms presented by Graeff and others. Conclusion Hersey, Blanchard and Johnsons Situational Leadership Theory has made a significant impact in the field of leadership and organizational research. By bringing attention to the situational nature of leadership, calling for flexibility on the part of anyone in position to influence behavior and recognizing the inherent duality of leadership, the authors serve leaders and followers well. Nevertheless, the lack of empirical support is a powerful critique of an otherwise attractive and intriguing theory. Further research would be a valuable asset towards a better understanding of the theory and in explaining the sharp contrast between the lack of empirical evidence and the broad, eager acceptance the theory holds in a myriad of fields across the globe.

10

REFERENCE LIST Blanchard, K. H., D. Zigarmi and R. B. Nelson. 1993. Situational leadership after 25 years: A retrospsective. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 1 (1): 21-36. Blank, W., J. R. Weitzel and S. G. Green. 1990. A test of the situational leadership theory. Personnel Psychology. 43 (3): 579-597. Cairns, Thomas D., John Hollenback, Robert C. Preziosi and William A. Snow. 1998. Technical note: A study of Hersey and Blanchards situational leadership theory. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. 19 (2): 113-116. Fernandez, Carmen F. and Robert P. Vecchio. 1997. Situational leadership theory revisited: A test of an across-jobs perspective. Leadership Quarterly. 8 (1) (Spring): 67-74. Goodson, J. R., G. W. McGee and J. F. Cashman. 1989. Situational leadership theory: A test of leadership prescriptions. Group and Organization Studies. 14: 446-461. Graeff, Claude L. 1983. The situational leadership theory: A critical view. Academy of Management Review. 8 (2): 285-291. _________. 1997. Evolution of situational leadership theory: A critical review. Leadership Quarterly. 8 (2) (Summer): 153-170. Hambleton, R. K. and R. Gumpert. 1982. The validity of Hersey and Blanchards theory of leader effectiveness. Group and Organization Studies. 7: 225-242. Hersey, P. and K. H. Blanchard. 1969. Life cycle theory of leadership: Is there a best style of leadership? Training and Development Journal. 33 (6): 26-34. Hersey, Paul, Kenneth H. Blanchard and Dewey E. Johnson. 2001. Management of organizational behavior: Leading human resources. 8th ed. Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall. Korman, A. K. 1966. Consideration, initiating structure, and organization criteria: A review. Personnel Psychology. 19: 349-361. Norris, William R. and Robert P Vecchio. 1992. Situational leadership theory: A replication. Group and Organization Management. 17 (3): 331-342.

11 Reddin, W. J. 1968. The 3-D management style theory. Training and Development Journal. 21 (4): 39-41. Vecchio, Robert P. 1987. Situational leadership theory: An examination of a prescriptive theory. Journal of Applied Psychology. 72 (3): 444-451.