Hersey & Blanchard
THE SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP MODEL FOCUSES ON THE FIT OF LEADERSHIP
STYLE AND FOLLOWER MATURITY
In contrast to Fiedler’s contingency leadership model and its underlying assumption that
leadership style is hard to change, the Hersey-Blanchard situational leadership model
suggests that successful leaders do adjust their styles. For Hersey and Blanchard the key
issue in making these adjustments is follower maturity, as indicated by their readiness to
perform in a given situation. “Readiness,” in this sense, is largely based on two major factors
– follower ability and follower confidence.
The situational leadership model views leaders as varying their emphasis on task and
relationship behaviors to best deal with different levels of follower maturity. 2 The two- by-
two matrix shown in the small figure indicates that four leadership styles are possible. -
Delegating Style; allowing the group to take responsibility for task decisions; this is a low-
task, low-relationship style.
- Participating Style; emphasizing shared ideas and participative decisions on task
directions; this is a low-task, high-relationship style.
- Selling Style; explaining task directions in a supportive and persuasive way; this is a
high- task, high-relationship style.
- Telling Style;giving specific task directions and closely supervising work; this is a
high- task, low-relationship style.
Managers using the situational leadership model must be able to implement the alternative
leadership styles as needed. To do this, they have to understand the maturity of followers in
terms of readiness for task performance and then use the style that best fits. In terms of the
appropriate style-situation match ups, the situational leadership model suggests the
following.
When follower maturity is high, the situational leadership model calls for a delegating style
which might be described as offering minimal leadership intervention. The style is one of
turning over decisions to followers who have high task readiness based on abilities,
willingness and confidence about task accomplishment. When follower maturity is low, by
contrast, the model calls for the telling style with its emphasis on task directed behaviors.
The telling style works best in this situation of low readiness, by giving instructions and
bringing structure to a situation where followers lack capability and are unwilling or insecure
about their tasks.
, The participating style is recommended for low-to-moderate readiness situations. Here,
followers are capable but also unwilling or insecure about the tasks. As you might expect,
this participation style with its emphasis on relationships is supposed to help followers share
ideas and thus draw forth understanding and task confidence. The selling style is
recommended for moderate to high-readiness situations. Here, followers lack capability but
are willing or confident about the task. In this case, the selling style and its emphasis on task
guidance is designed to facilitate performance through persuasive explanation.
Hersey and Blanchard believe that leaders should be flexible and adjust their styles as
followers and situations change over time. The model also implies that if the correct styles
are used in lower-readiness situations, followers will mature and grow in their abilities and
confidence. This willingness to understand follower development and respond with flexibility
allows the leader to become less directive as followers mature.
The Hersey-Blanchard situational leadership model is intuitively appealing and has been
widely used in management development programs. Even though empirical research
support has been limited, the conclusion seems to be that the basic ideas of the model have
merit. Leaders might do well to consider altering styles to achieve the best fits with followers
and situations, even as they change with time. Also, the model reminds leaders that the skill
levels and task confidence of followers should be given continuing attention through training
and development efforts.
LEADER-MEMBER EXHANGE THEORY INDICATES THAT LEADERS DEVELOP
SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH TRUSTED FOLLOWERS
One of the things you may have noticed in your work and study groups is the tendencies of
leaders to develop “special” relationships with some team members. This tendency is central
to leader-member exchange theory, or LMX theory as it is often called. The theory basically
recognizes that in most, or at least many, leadership situations not everyone is treated the
same by the leader. Instead, people fall into “in” groups and “out” groups in relationships with
their leaders. Obviously, the group you are in can have quite a significant influence on your
experience with the leader.
The notion underlying leader-member exchange theory is that as a leader and follower
interact over time, their exchanges end up defining the follower’s role. Whether due to
personality similarities or differences, time pressures and interaction opportunities, or the
follower’s competencies and accomplishments, this role ends up being defined into a high-
exchange or low-exchange relationship with the leader.
You might think of the LMX concept in respect to a leader being more willing to find time to
spend relating to and interacting with some followers than others. Those that do get the
leader’s attention end up forming a special in-group relationship with him or her.
Look around, you’re likely to see some example of this in classroom situations between
instructors and certain students and in work situations between bosses and certain
subordinates. And as you do consider this tendency, do you see any differences in the way
in- and out-group members respond to differences in leader-member exchanges?
One of the implications of the leader-member exchange theory is that the nature of the
exchange is determined by the leader based on some presumed characteristics of the
follower. A high LMX relationship is usually based on perceived favorable personality,
compatibility, and competency; a low LMX relationship is based on just the opposite set of
views.
For the follower in a high LMX relationship, being part of the leader’s inner circle or in- group
can have positive implications in terms of getting rewards, access to information, and other
