Proposition Against the Situational Leadership Style
•
1 like•1,423 views
This document outlines arguments for and against the situational leadership approach. It begins with an introduction stating "Be it resolved that the Situational Leadership approach is valid" and then presents four negatives and four arguments. The negatives claim that situational leadership lacks research, standards, clear evaluation of subordinates' development, and guidelines for group leadership. The arguments state that situational leadership provides standards for training leaders, is easy to understand, can enhance leader effectiveness, and advocates for flexible leaders and styles. The document concludes with references.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (7)
Similar to Proposition Against the Situational Leadership Style
Similar to Proposition Against the Situational Leadership Style (20)
More from Holley Jacobs
More from Holley Jacobs (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (17)
Proposition Against the Situational Leadership Style
- 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Cover Face 2. Table of Contents 3. Introduction 4. Negative One – Lack of Research 5. Argument One - Standards in Training Leaders 6. Negative Two – Subordinates Development Levels 7. Argument Two – Easy to Understand 8. Negative Three – Leadership in Group Settings 9. Argument Three – Enhance Leader Effectiveness 10. Negative Four - Directive Styles 11. Argument Four – Flexible Leaders & Styles 12. Conclusion 13. References
- 3. INTRODUCTION “Be it resolved that the Situational Leadership approach is valid.”
- 4. LACKS STRONG BODY OF RESEARCH No justification equals no support. Is it valid? No foundation to build upon
- 5. STANDARD IN TRAINING LEADERS No standards for the standards. No validity for advice on leadership. Needs a measurement system.
- 6. SUBORDINATES DEVELOPMENT LEVELS No clear evaluation criteria Unclear of subordinates developmental progress Subordinate performance does not reflect manager’s ability
- 7. EASY TO UNDERSTAND Statement doesn’t give any guidelines. Easy to understand does not equal effective. Application cannot be mirrored off a previous situation.
- 8. GROUP SETTING LEADERSHIP No guidelines are given for leading groups. Counsel is provided, but how to lead a group cohesively is unclear.
- 9. ENHANCE LEADER EFFECTIVENESS Too many approaches given to fix issues within the team. Does not promote consistency in the leader’s approach.
- 10. DIRECTIVE STYLES Low supportive-low directive style (S4) No task input No support No responsibility Question demographic characteristics One of one versus group leadership
- 11. FLEXIBLE LEADERS & STYLES Low supportive – low directive style Confusion Narcissistic Diminishes team performance Communication and sharing are lacking Less adaption to understanding others
- 13. REFERENCESButler Jr., J. K., & Reese, R. M. (1991). Leadership style and sales performance: A test of the situational leadership model. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 11(3), 37-47. Humphreys, J., Zhao, D., Ingram, K., Gladstone, J., & Basham, L. (2010). Situational narcissism and charismatic leadership: a conceptual framework. Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management, 11(2), 118-136. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2013). The leadership challenge (6th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Lantham, J. R. (2014). Leadership for Quality and Innovation: Challenges, Theories, and a Framework for Future Research. Quality Management Journal, 21(1), 11-15. Northouse, P. (2012). Leadership theory and practice I. Thousand Oaks, Califorma: Sage. Tiffan, B (2014) The art of team influence. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 799- 801. Tost, L. P., Gino, F., Larrick, R. P. (2013). When power makes others speechless: The negative impact of leader power on team performance. Academy of Management Journal. 56(5), 1465-1486
Editor's Notes
- GM 502 - Leadership Theory and Practice I “Be it resolved that the Situational Leadership approach is valid.” July 15, 2014 Colette Veilleux Holley Klein Lyndon Gaddy Thomas Ivey
- Cover Face Table of Contents Introduction Negative One – Lack of Research Argument One - Standards in Training Leaders Negative Two – Subordinates Development Levels Argument Two – Easy to Understand Negative Three – Leadership in Group Settings Argument Three – Enhance Leader Effectiveness Negative Four - Directive Styles Argument Four – Flexible Leaders & Styles Conclusion References
- The situational approach is often used and widely recognized as an accurate style of leadership. It can be broken down into two subsets - directive or supportive behaviors. Directive behaviors are tasks or assignments that are given to each team member and defines goals and deadlines for employees. Supportive behaviors deal with the people aspect of leadership. The situational leadership approach is then broken down into various styles or approaches. They include directing style, coaching approach, supporting approach, and delegating approach. Each one differs based on an individual needs, abilities, wants and responsibilities. The situational leadership approach, like all leadership approaches has its pros and cons. This presentation is about the inside workings of the situational approach, giving details into each aspect and how the approach can best be used (Northouse, 2012).
- John Latham, leadership scholar-practitioner with over 30 years of experience, states that a key issue in leadership research is that there has been no convergence toward a reasonable number of cogent leadership theories (Latham, 2014). When it comes to Situational Leadership, it is also guilty of this issue. Without the data and research to justify the theory, situational leadership has no basis to build on.
- Without having any standards of metric available to calculate effectiveness, it is hard to understand how situation leadership can be recognized as the standard for training leaders. Leadership should be able to be measured to assess its effectiveness. Yes there is no shortness on advice on how to lead, but unfortunately the validity of this advice varies widely and it is not easily applied (Latham, 2014). With a workforce, that is constantly diversifying and leadership theories on every hand, qualifying or validating advice for effective leadership is a complicated task that will have to be solved in order to develop effective training or them.
- The negative proposition #2 is based around the development of those being lead. Without a set process of how to lead with the situational theory leadership style there is too much room to infer and assume. This could result in a person in a leadership position misinterpreting the situation that they are assessing and actually hurting the overall morale or well-being of everyone involved. The theory also does not specify when subordinates progress for low areas of development to high areas (Northouse, 2012). Employee development could be hindered if they are not advanced in a proper timeline. Leaving them at a low level could also lower their morale and cause them to leave the organization all together. Another issue that the situational theory can lead to is the subordinate’s performance does not necessarily reflect the manager’s ability (Butler Jr. & Reese, 1991). A great leader can oversee a department, but have little effect on the mentorship of their people because they are adjusting to the moment and not instilling their knowledge to the subordinates.
- Position proposition #2 talks about how easy it is to understand and apply the situational leadership theory. The argument against that begins with a lack of guidelines that negates the effect of the simple theory. If a person does not understand what and how they should properly do something then they will not be able to be effective with it. Just because something is easy to understand and apply does not mean it is the best method. A golf club can be used to drive in a nail and it easy to understand and will be effective, but I would much rather use a hammer. In this example situational theory is represented by the golf club while the hammer represents a different leadership theory. Because the situational theory feeds off different situations, a leader cannot use one as an example for their current situation. This can cause problems as no sort of template will be available for easier implementation.
- No two situations are quite alike when leading a department or group of individuals. Team members are all different and have unique circumstances, skill sets, motivations, personalities and goals. Each case study shows that situational approach is useful for case by case and person by person situations (Northouse, 2013). There is a deficit of research available that show the validity of the approach and how it relates to the group dynamic. Critics wonder if the leader should go by the mean skill set of the group and start from there (Northouse, 2013). This would not be ideal since it would not be fair for those who are highly experienced and novice. it is not practical many times depending on the size of the team. There is value in shared values. The leader sets the tone. The team will follow his lead and example for what excellence is and how to approach situations (Kouzes & Posner, 2012). Everyone needs to know what the goal and expectations are for their team. This will also make things easier in individual expectations. Another way to be able to provide guidance to the team as a whole instead of one by one and providing varying approaches is to give them the resources and tools to mimic the values by the leaders example (Kouzes & Posner, 2012). Everyone can get on board and understand what is expected of not only them, but for each other. This approach promotes unity, clarity, and openness. Situational approach appears to be done behind closed doors, and is executed based on various theories that are up to the leader to decide based on that specific issue.
- This format does not promote a sense of team. This style turns everything into an individual case and relies on the leader to spend his or her time dealing with individual issues instead of being productive. In addition, this opens the door to staff members thinking that the leader is playing favorites and is relaxed in discipline with others. Consequences for one person may be different for another regarding similar incidences. Word will likely get out and trust and loyalty will come into question. The appearance of balanced and fair does not seem prevalent with this situational approach. Overall, it lacks consistency. “Situational leadership reminds us to treat each subordinate differently based on the task at hand. . . “ (Northouse, 2013). This sentence in of itself shows how this style is complex and interwoven with various methods that can get confusing.. Dealing with issues individually makes it difficult to have a single purpose and a set standard for everyone. The department needs to know the goals that are placed for them. If everyone is being dealt with privately, this makes it hard for the department to know how it is moving forward as a whole. How do they all work towards team goals when each one is given custom guidance and counsel? Each member must have their own specific performance goals. This is how they grow and mature. The deficiency of this approach is that it does not recognize how it relates to big picture and team focus. A team needs to have a common purpose, and everyone knows what it is and how they are going to reach that as a team (Tiffan, 2014).
- With taking the Situational Approach to Leadership in an S4 fashion, which is known as low supportive-low directive style. There is less involvement from the manager or leader, he or she offers little if any task input, social support, confidence or motivation to support the team. The leader relies solely on the facilitating employees to get the work done and takes no responsibility. It in turn questions the commitment of the leader. It also fails to take into account demographic characteristics, such as an employee’s education, experience, ages and gender; these are factors that must be considered by a true leader when working in a team setting. As a S4 manager or leader, they have no say or opportunity to support or mentor because control has been turned over to subordinates, which can turn into team failure based on lack of training, support, and communication (Northouse, 2013)
- With the understanding of the (Sd4) the leader does not have the ability to control others outcomes, experiences or behaviors (Northouse, 2013). This can lead to increased political conflict amongst remaining team members, and confusion as to what the task is. Lack of communication, sharing of ideas/resolutions to the problem, and the misunderstanding/adaptation of others and what they are saying or trying to say( Tost, Gino, Larrick, 2013). Finally, it can lead to a narcissistic approach where someone else on the team wants total control( Humphreys, Zhao, Ingram, Gladstone, Basham, 2010). In the end, the SD4 approach will ultimately end with a failure of the team as a whole do to the lack of leadership involvement in regards to guidance, communication, support and understanding.
- In conclusion, it is easy to see the pros and cons of the situational approach. Even the pros can lead to potential cons. However, the situational approach has its uses in such places like the military. This type of leadership approach would increase productivity and morale while the leader gains respect from his subordinates. One must take the strengths and use them to the best of their ability while realizing the cons of the approach so as not to get caught in a sticky situation that affects the workplace.
- Butler Jr., J. K., & Reese, R. M. (1991). Leadership style and sales performance: A test of the situational leadership model. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 11(3), 37-47. Humphreys, J., Zhao, D., Ingram, K., Gladstone, J., & Basham, L. (2010). Situational narcissism and charismatic leadership: a conceptual framework. Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management, 11(2), 118-136. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2013). The leadership challenge (6th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lantham, J. R. (2014). Leadership for Quality and Innovation: Challenges, Theories, and a Framework for Future Research. Quality Management Journal, 21(1), 11-15. Northouse, P. (2012). Leadership theory and practice I. Thousand Oaks, Califorma: Sage. Tiffan, B (2014) The art of team influence. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 799-801. Tost, L. P., Gino, F., Larrick, R. P. (2013). When power makes others speechless: The negative impact of leader power on team performance. Academy of Management Journal. 56(5), 1465-1486