SAGE Books Leadership for Organizations The Situationa.docx

SAGE Books
Leadership for Organizations
The Situational Approach to Leadership
By: David A. Waldman & Charles O’Reilly
Book Title: Leadership for Organizations
Chapter Title: "The Situational Approach to Leadership"
Pub. Date: 2020
Access Date: November 6, 2022
Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc.
City: Thousand Oaks
Print ISBN: 9781544332727
Online ISBN: 9781544360508
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781544360508.n5
Print pages: 55-76
© 2020 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This PDF has been generated from SAGE Knowledge. Please
note that the pagination of the online

version will vary from the pagination of the print book.
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781544360508.n5
“Motivation is based on what you bring to it as an individual.
What is motivational to one person isn’t
motivational to another.”
— Bob Nelson, author and management consultant
Learning Objectives
• 5.1
Identify why flexible approaches to the situational approach to
leadership are more practical
• 5.2
Apply the situational approach to leadership to instances
involving day-to-day leader behavior, as
well as specifically to decision-making
• 5.3
Appraise the potential problems with applying the situational
approach to principles
• 5.4
State other important leadership issues that are not taken into
account by situational approaches to

leadership
A question that is continually addressed in this book is: What
makes for effective leadership? For many years,
the predominant approach to understanding effective leadership
was to identify behavioral factors that would
be practiced by any good leader across situations and contexts.
In other words, the predominant approach
was generic. Thus, the types of styles that were identified in
chapter 2, such as relations- and task-oriented
leadership, were considered to be universal behavioral qualities
that should be practiced across situations
and contexts.
On the other hand, when asked what effective leadership is all
about, one thing that is likely to come to mind
for many people is that “it depends.” And rightfully so—to a
large extent, it does depend. Effective leadership,
and more specifically the behavioral style that should be
emphasized, partly depends on the nature of the
people who the leader is attempting to lead, or followers. As
mentioned in chapter 1, it may also depend on
the greater context in which the leader and followers find
themselves. That greater context can include a host
of factors such as industry, institution or type of work, and even
the geographical context.
In this chapter, we will explore what it depends is all about. As
we will see, this situational point of view of
effective leadership has a number of practical implications for
how leaders should lead on a day-to-day, or
problem-to-problem, basis.1 On the other hand, it also has a
number of challenges for leaders. For example,
getting an accurate reading of followers and their needs and
expectations can be challenging. However, such
a reading is critical if a situational approach to leadership is to

be effective.
There are two ways to consider this approach. The first is an
inflexible manner of leading. It essentially
assumes that a leader has a predominant style that is not
flexible. In other words, the leader will attempt to use
a desired or “comfortable” style, regardless of the situation. For
example, a leader with a predominantly task-
oriented, directive style will want to use it regardless of the
nature of the followers whom he or she is leading
and regardless of the context. So even if the situation called for
a more people-oriented approach, the leader
would still want to remain task oriented or directive.2 One
possibility would be to simply place such a leader in
a context that, at least for the most part, would benefit from a
task-oriented, directive leader. Examples might
include situations in which work standards or conduct have
become lax, in which workers were accustomed
to such leadership in the past, and in certain jobs or institutions
in which directive leadership is the norm (e.g.,
military or paramilitary organizations).
Likewise, there are some contexts that institutional norms and
the nature of workers typically require more of
SAGE
© 2020 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Books
Page 2 of 19
SAGE Books - Leadership for Organizations
https://sk.sagepub.com/books/leadership-for-
organizations/i609.xml

a people-oriented or participative style. Examples include the
leading of knowledge workers (e.g., university
faculty members, computer science specialists, and engineers)
and volunteer organizations. A leader with a
predominantly people-oriented or participative style would be
placed in such contexts.
Accordingly, an inflexible approach could make sense at times.
If a particular leader is known for being task
oriented or directive, it could be a good match for some
situations, while being more of a people-oriented or
participative leader might make sense in other situations. In
other words, the situation is static, and there is
not much need for leader flexibility in terms of the type of style
that might be shown toward followers.
Inflexible
a way of considering situational approaches to leadership
whereby a leader’s style is considered to be static
(or not flexible), and the leader is matched to the prevailing
situation.
But with that said, there are two key problems with the
inflexible approach. First, the general situation or
context may shift over time. For example, when a leader is first
assigned to a particular context, followers
may generally need and expect a more authoritarian approach.
However, over time, followers may mature
and develop, thereby making a directive approach less
appropriate, while necessitating more people-oriented
qualities on the part of the leader, such as participative
behavior. However, it may not be practical or desirable

to just simply fire or transfer leaders around in order to fit a
particular context or changes in that context
over time. Second, most situations are fluid and can essentially
“zig-zag” in terms of the required leadership
approach at a particular point in time. Some followers may need
more of a “human touch” at times in terms
of people-oriented leadership, or they may have the need and
capability to be more fully involved in decision-
making. However, other followers may need a more directive
approach. In addition, the leader himself or
herself may not have enough knowledge or expertise to tackle
certain problems alone and, thus, might need
some participation on the part of followers, depending on the
issue or decision to be made.
In short, more of a flexible approach is warranted, whereby any
given leader can handle and adapt to the
various needs and capabilities of different followers and
situations at various points in time. Accordingly,
we describe three such approaches in the remainder of this
chapter: (1) path-goal, (2) Hersey/Blanchard
situational approach to leader decision-making, and (3)
Vroom/Jago contingency leadership. Although they
all represent different forms of a flexible approach, Table 5.1
depicts different aspects and foci of these
models. Perhaps most importantly in terms of the targeted
behavior, path-goal represents a generalized
form of flexible leadership because it pertains to day-to-day
interactions with followers—and the problems or
issues they face, that may or may not involve decision-making
processes. Somewhat more narrowly, both
the Hersey/Blanchard and Vroom/Jago models deal more
specifically with how leaders go about making
decisions that affect or could include followers. We consider
these different approaches in more detail below.

Flexible
a way of considering situational approaches to leadership
whereby any given leader can handle and adapt to
the various needs and capabilities of different followers and
situations at various points in time.
Table 5.1 Overview of Models of Situational Approaches to
Leadership
Targeted Behavior Situational Factor(s)
Possible Leader
Styles
Path-goal
Day-to-day interactions and problems or issues that are
faced by followers
Needs of the follower and leader, as well as demands of
the work environment
Directive
Supportive
Participative
Achievement-
oriented
SAGE
SAGE Books
Page 3 of 19

Hersey/
Blanchard
Decision-making Follower readiness in terms of both ability and
motivation
Directive
Consultative
Facilitative
Delegative
Vroom/Jago Decision-making
Nature of the decision, situational readiness of followers,
and leader expertise
Directive
Consultative
Facilitative
Delegative
Path-Goal Leadership
At a basic level, the relationship between leaders and followers
is all about transactions. Leaders and the
organizations that they represent get something out of the
transaction (i.e., employee performance), while

at the same time, followers benefit as well from the transaction
(i.e., various rewards such as continuous
employment and better work assignments). The problem is that
issues or difficulties may arise on a day-to-
day basis that keep these transactions from being consummated
to everyone’s satisfaction. To this end, the
overall purpose of path-goal leadership is for leaders to adapt
their style to fit the situational needs of followers
and their work environment.3 The goal is for leaders to use an
appropriate style that will clarify the actions that
need to be taken by followers (i.e., the “path”) so that they can
realize their rewards, while avoiding problems,
such as reprimands. But simultaneously, the needs of the work
environment, including the leader himself or
herself, must be met in order for a transaction to be effective.
Let’s consider some examples based on follower needs that are
shown in Table 5.2. If a follower is relatively
new on the job or is facing a task with which she has no
experience, it would help to have directive leadership.
That directive leadership will provide clarity so that the
follower will be more assured that her efforts will lead
to effective performance and rewards (e.g., job security, the
possibility of more responsibility, and so forth). In
addition, if there is a great time pressure to get something done,
the leader may feel a need to be directive in
order to realize organizational goals, as well as the personal
goals of followers.
If a follower lacks confidence, the leader should focus on
supportive behaviors to help prop up the follower’s
self-confidence. Such is oftentimes the case for new employees.
Although positive reinforcement should be
applied to all followers, it may be especially important for new
employees who may lack confidence. Further,
from time to time, followers may experience personal

difficulties (e.g., problematic personal relationships,
death of a significant other, and so forth) that might hurt them
emotionally and that threaten their ability to
accomplish work goals. Under such circumstances, it behooves
the leader to show supportive behavior.
As also shown in Table 5.2, sometimes followers desire more
involvement or voice, which in and of itself
could reflect a personal goal (i.e., followers may have a felt
need for involvement in their work settings). For
example, followers may feel a need to get involved in a range of
decision-making, even beyond how their
job tasks are performed, such as team scheduling, production
standards, quality improvement efforts, and so
forth. By being more participative and allowing employee voice,
the leader enhances the follower’s sense of
control and ensures that his or her needs are met. On the other
hand, and as articulated further later in this
chapter, there can be a conflict between a follower’s desire for
more participation and his or her readiness or
capability to effectively handle that participation—at least in
the eyes of the leader.
From a path-goal perspective, follower voice can have an
additional advantage that goes beyond task-related
or workplace decision-making. When leaders allow for
followers to speak up or have voice, they can learn
more about their own personal goals or needs. For example, in a
video associated with chapter 3, the head
of a minor league baseball league, Dave Kaval, describes a
conversation with an employee who has not
been following his directives. Instead of just reprimanding the
employee, he takes the opportunity to provide
SAGE

SAGE Books
Page 4 of 19
the employee with voice, thereby learning about a special desire
that the employee has to play the role of
a team’s mascot. In a path-goal mode, Kaval negotiates with the
employee about how this desire can be
satisfied if the employee learns to more conscientiously follow
directives. In this way, the goals of both Kaval
and the employee are attained.
Table 5.2 Situational Demands, Path-Goal Leadership Styles,
and Effects on Followers
Follower Needs Leadership Style Effects on Followers
Work is ambiguous for followers; time pressures exist in
work environment
Directive Clarifies what needs to be done in order to attain
rewards
Followers lack confidence or need personal support Supportive
Increases followers’ confidence or emotional ability to achieve
work
results
Followers both desire and should have more voice or
involvement

Participative
Allows a sense of control in making sure that results are
achieved and
rewards are attained
Work is not challenging for followers
Achievement-
oriented
Allows followers to strive for higher-level goals
Finally, achievement-oriented leadership may be warranted
when a follower is not being appropriately
challenged. If not properly challenged, followers may get bored
and frustrated, which could eventually lead to
turnover. But again, it is always possible that a follower may
think that she could use more challenging work,
and she might even lobby her leader for it, but the leader may
feel differently, or such opportunities are simply
not available in the organizational context. This often occurs for
relatively new employees or employees who
are “freshly minted” from school. The leader may feel that the
new employee is not ready for increased
challenges, or that the new employee has not “paid her dues” in
terms of time spent conducting lower-level
tasks.
One thing that should be emphasized is that these styles are
neither mutually exclusive, nor rigid in their
application. In other words, it is possible that in a given
situation, a follower might best be served by applying
more than one style relatively simultaneously, although one of
those styles might be predominant. For
example, a leader might choose to be mainly directive but still
be somewhat supportive. In addition, if in a

given situation, a leader has shown a strong tendency toward
being supportive, but it has not worked out well
in terms of achieving goals for either the follower or the
organization, it is always possible to switch to another
style over time (e.g., become more directive).
As a final note about path-goal leadership, it should be clear in
the above discussion that it is largely about
the follower and specifically dealing with individual follower
needs. However, the follower is not the only one
with needs. The needs of the work environment, as well as those
of the leader himself or herself, must
be met in order for a transaction to be effective. It is quite
possible for the needs of the various parties to
clash. For example, there could be times when a follower needs
personal support, but the needs of the work
environment or the leader suggest that a more directive
approach is warranted. Highly uncertain or crisis
conditions come to mind, whereby even if a follower has
personal problems (which might suggest the need
for supportive leadership), the leader might perceive a lack of
time to provide such support, and instead, he
is highly directive and demanding of the follower in that
situation.
Hersey/Blanchard Approach to Decision-Making Based on the
Situation
Decision-making is an obviously important task for leaders.
From a leadership perspective, we focus on the
process by which leaders make decisions rather than on the
nature of the decisions that are actually made.4
We especially consider the extent to which they involve
followers in that process. Hersey and Blanchard put
forth a situational approach to leadership, specifically leader
decision-making that has been used primarily to

SAGE
SAGE Books
Page 5 of 19
help leaders determine a decision-making style in various
situations that they face.5 The basic question is if,
and to what degree, followers should get involved in decision-
making.
Decision-making styles.
As shown in Figure 5.1, there are four basic styles that may be
used. The first style is to be directive,
whereby the leader makes decisions for followers and provides
explicit directives or instructions. A second
style is consultative, whereby the leader seeks input from
followers, allows for questions, and overall provides
followers with some degree of voice in the decision-making
process. Indeed, the leader might even go
through more than one iteration, whereby a solution to a
problem is posed, followers provide input, the leader
reformulates a modified solution, followers provide more input,
and so forth. Third, the leader may engage
in a facilitative style, whereby the leader encourages equal
participation with followers in a decision-making
process. As such, a decision or plan of action is not reached
until both the leader and followers come to
consensus. During the process, the leader may act as a
discussion facilitator, but the leader makes it clear

that he or she has just one voice, and followers have equal
voice. Finally, the leader may choose a delegative
style, whereby the decision-making process and its
implementation are turned over to followers.
Two things should be noted about these styles. First, each one
could apply to a single follower, or to the larger
team as a whole. For example, if a decision or task applies to a
single follower and if the leader determines
that consultative is the appropriate style, the leader would
confer with that follower alone. However, if the
decision or task pertains to the larger team, the leader would
consult with multiple individuals in the team.
Depending on the leader’s preference, such consultation could
be conducted one-on-one or, alternatively,
take place in a team meeting.
Figure 5.1 Leader Decision-Making Styles
Source: Adapted from Vroom, V. H. (2000). Leadership and the
Decision-Making Process. Organizational
Dynamics, 28(4), 82–94.
Second, Figure 5.1 shows a dashed line that signifies
Demarcation of Control. At its core, decision-making
is all about control, versus giving up control. The dashed line
signifies the point at which control of decision-
making shifts to followers, specifically through the use of
facilitative and delegative styles on the part of the
leader. It is interesting to note that consultative is a very
popular style among leaders, since it gives them
the sense that they are involving followers in decision-making
and providing them with voice. However, a
consultative style does not involve what might be termed true
participation, since the authority or control
remains in the hands of the leader. Some leaders might argue

that regardless of the situation, control should
always rest with the leader. After all, in the end, the leader will
be held to account for decisions and actions
emanating from his or her team. However, the situational
viewpoint would suggest that there are times or
SAGE
SAGE Books
Page 6 of 19
contexts in which either facilitative or even delegative styles of
leadership would be more appropriate. But
what are these situational factors?
Demarcation of Control
the point at which decision-making control shifts from leader to
followers, specifically through the use of
facilitative and delegative styles on the part of the leader.
Using the Hersey/Blanchard approach, the key situational
variable to consider is follower readiness, which
takes into account both ability and confidence or motivation on
the part of the follower. As shown in Table
5.3, there are four readiness levels. At level 1, followers have
low ability and low confidence or motivation.
Accordingly, the prescribed leadership style is for the leader to
be directive. A directive style might thus
be most appropriate when followers are very new to a job, and
they lack both ability and confidence. At

level 2 readiness, a consultative style should work best.
Followers lack a high degree of ability or expertise
to make a decision, but they demonstrate a degree of confidence
and a motivation to be involved in the
decision-making. For example, after some time on the job,
followers may start to increase their abilities and
expertise pertaining to certain decisions, but not to the extent of
being able to fully involve them in decision-
making through a facilitative process. However, at level 3
readiness, followers have the requisite abilities,
information, or expertise to be highly involved in a decision-
making process, even to the degree of having an
equal voice with the leader. With that said, they may also lack
some confidence to make a decision on their
own and carry it out. Accordingly, the leader should facilitate
the decision-making process. Finally, at level 4
readiness, followers are able, willing, and confident enough to
essentially take over or accept responsibility
for a decision-making process. Using this delegative approach,
the leader may simply provide an overall
goal, vision, or general parameters of what needs to be
accomplished. But the actual decision-making and
implementation are left to followers.
Table 5.3 Effective Leadership Style Based on Follower
Readiness
Leadership Style Follower Readiness Levels
Directive Level 1: lack of ability and confidence regarding the
problem at hand
Consultative Level 2: lack of ability, but confidence and
motivation to be involved in decision-making for the problem at
hand

Facilitative Level 3: strong ability or information pertaining to
the problem at hand, but low confidence to make a decision
independently
Delegative Level 4: very high readiness in terms of both ability
and confidence to address the problem at hand
For instance, consider the following situation that happened to a
recent MBA graduate who was appointed
the manager of a kidney dialysis clinic. Although she had
several years of experience as a teacher and
educational administrator, she had little experience in health
care. The clinic consisted of 40 staff members,
including kidney dialysis technicians, nurses, administrative
personnel, and social workers, all of whom had
long tenure and in-depth technical skills. The problem facing
the new manager was a complicated scheduling
issue that needed to accommodate vacations, personal time off,
and unexpected absences. The manager’s
first instinct was to use her considerable spreadsheet skills and
construct the optimal schedule for the clinic.
Doing this quickly in a directive mode would be both quick and
efficient. Upon reflection, however, she realized
that the staff—although they may have lacked her modeling
skills—were willing, able, and confident enough
to come up with the schedule themselves. Although it took
longer, by delegating the task and decision-making
to her staff, she ended up with a schedule that the employees
“owned.” In other words, they were willing to
live with the schedule that they had devised in a way they might
not have if she had simply used her own
expertise to solve the problem and make the decision.
Fluidity is one thing that should be made clear about the real-
world application of the Hersey/Blanchard

SAGE
SAGE Books
Page 7 of 19
approach, as well as that of Vroom/Jago, which follows next.
That is, different styles of leadership might be
shown to the same followers in different decision-making
situations. For example, over time, followers may
achieve a relatively high level of readiness with regard to the
technical aspects of their own work; hence,
the leader might be either facilitative or delegative with these
aspects. However, for broader organizational
issues (e.g., unit-level scheduling and work standards),
followers may not be so ready to assume control
of decision-making. In those circumstances, either a directive or
consultative approach would be optimum.
Even for a given decision-making process, depending on how
things proceed, the leader might feel the need
to change course over time. For example, a leader may have
initially determined that delegation was the
way to go to formulate a vacation schedule for her employees.
But after a few meetings among employees,
it becomes apparent to them that they cannot reach agreement
due to a lack of confidence or knowledge
regarding scheduling parameters. If this were to occur, the
leader might feel the need to backtrack and either
use a more facilitative or consultative approach to solve the
problem and make a decision. Of course, as will
be considered later in the chapter, followers may not understand
or appreciate fluidity in the leader’s decision-

making, which might cause them to question or even not accept
the leader’s situational approach.
Fluidity
how different styles of leadership might be shown to the same
followers in different decision-making situations
or even in the same situation over time.
Vroom/Jago Approach to Decision-Making Based on the
Situation
While the work of Hersey and Blanchard is useful in an attempt
to understand situational approaches to
leader decision-making, the situational factor to be considered,
follower readiness, is somewhat simplistic or
incomplete. There are other factors that come into play,
including the significance of the problem or decision
at hand, leader expertise to deal with the problem on his or her
own, the amount of commitment that is
necessary from followers, and followers’ ability to work
together as a team to solve a problem (assuming that
the problem is team, rather than individual, based). All of these
factors are considered simultaneously by an
approach to leader decision-making that was authored by Vroom
and Jago.6
As shown in Table 5.4, in any given decision-making situation,
there are seven questions that are relevant
to determining the degree of follower involvement. Depending
on the answers to these questions, the leader
would be pushed more or less toward follower involvement in
the decision-making process. A distinguishing
aspect of this process is that the leader follows a decision tree
analysis as shown in Figures 5.2 and 5.3. A
decision tree allows for branching out in different directions

with the different questions that are depicted in
Table 5.4. The path that one takes in the decision tree depends
on the answer to a prior question in Table
5.4. For instance, in the scheduling problem described above,
although the clinic manager had sufficient
information to make the decision, she also realized that
acceptance among her subordinates would be critical
and that they had the skills to come up with a good solution.
Using the models depicted in Figures 5.2 and
5.3, these aspects of the situation would push the manager to be
either facilitative or delegative.
Table 5.4 Situational Questions and Implications for Follower
Involvement
Situational Questions Implications for Follower Involvement
1. How important is the decision or
problem in relation to the
effectiveness of the organization?
If the decision lacks importance, then most of the remaining
questions will not be relevant. In most instances,
the leader should simply make a decision on his or her own.
However, if the decision is important, then the
remaining questions become more relevant, and different styles
may be appropriate, depending on how the
remaining questions are answered.
2. For implementation purposes,
how important is follower
commitment to carrying out any
decision that is made?
Some decisions can be carried out even if followers are not
involved or committed to their implementation.

However, if implementation requires follower commitment, a
high degree of follower involvement in decision-
making is required.
SAGE
SAGE Books
Page 8 of 19
3. How much expertise or
information does the leader have with
regard to the decision or problem at
hand?
If the leader’s expertise or information is minimal, he or she
should involve followers in the decision-making.
4. If the leader was to make the
decision alone, would followers just
go along with it?
In some contexts, followers are used to leaders simply making
decisions on their own, and the followers just go
along with those decisions. If that is the case, then follower
involvement in the decision-making at hand will be
less important.
5. To what extent are the followers
supportive of organizational goals
that are relevant to the decision or
problem at hand?

If followers have low support for organizational goals, then
their involvement in the decision-making should be
minimal.
6. What is followers’ level of
expertise or information in relation to
the decision or problem at hand?
If followers’ expertise or information is extensive, then it
makes sense to get them more involved in decision-
making.
7. How skilled and committed are
followers in terms of working together
to solve problems?
If followers can work cooperatively with each other, or with the
leader, to solve problems, then they should be
more involved in decision-making.
SAGE
SAGE Books
Page 9 of 19
Figure 5.2 Time-Sensitive Model—Appropriate Decision-
Making Style
Sources: Adapted from Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988).
The New Leadership: Managing Participation in

Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; and Vroom,
V. H. (2000). Leadership and the Decision-
Making Process. Organizational Dynamics, 28(4), 82–94.
Two things are of special note in Figures 5.2 and 5.3. First,
some questions can be skipped, as shown by
dashed lines. The research of Vroom and Jago would suggest
that depending on the answer to some of the
questions, other questions might be skipped. Second, Figure 5.2
refers to a time-sensitive model, while Figure
5.3 involves a follower development model. Some decision-
making that leaders face is very time sensitive in
that a decision must be made relatively quickly, which can
occur most readily through directive or consultative
styles. On the other hand, if a decision is not so pressing, the
follower development model might be used.
Part of a leader’s responsibility is to develop the abilities of
followers, including decision-making and problem-
solving abilities. Allowing more involvement in decision-
making processes represents a way for leaders to
help give followers a better understanding of work and
organizational issues, and it may even lead to positive
outcomes such as heightened organizational commitment and
effort on the part of followers.
SAGE
SAGE Books
Page 10 of 19
Figure 5.3 Follower Development Model—Appropriate

Decision-Making Style
Sources: Adapted from Vroom & Jago (1988); and Vroom
(2000).
A close inspection of Figures 5.2 and 5.3 reveals that the
development-oriented model yields more instances
of facilitative and delegative styles being prescribed for the
leader. This should not be surprising in that
these styles are characterized by the most follower involvement.
With that said, there are going to be some
instances when the two models converge and yield the same
prescribed style. Sample written cases are listed
in the Appendix of this chapter. Each case provides enough
information to use the decision tree models that
are shown in Figures 5.2 and 5.3 in order to come up with a
prescribed leader style.
One intuitive question arises in relation to the practical use of
these models: Would a manager really stop
everything that he or she is doing in order to sit down and work
his or her way through these models?
Practically speaking, leaders are busy people who are
sometimes on the go or engaging in what has become
known as multitasking. So would they actually have the time or
ability to use the Vroom and Jago models? In
our own experience, the answer is actually yes, especially for
more important decisions for which the leader
may have time to reflect about the best way to approach it. At a
minimum, these models can serve as a more
systematic way to check “gut-level” reactions that a leader
might have regarding how to approach a decision-
making process. Indeed, the cases in the Appendix ask you to
compare your gut-level, or first impression,
choice of a decision style to what the Vroom/Jago models would
suggest. In some instances, they might be

SAGE
SAGE Books
Page 11 of 19
the same thing. But in other instances, the models might
contradict your gut-level choice. If that occurs, then
it is quite possible that the models are picking up on something
that your first impression of the case may be
missing.
Putting Situational Approaches to Leadership in Perspective
The situational perspective of leadership represents a practical,
day-to-day tool for leaders. The models that
we have described in this chapter help to answer the it all
depends issue for leaders who struggle with how to
proceed in a variety of situations that might involve followers.
But with that said, there are three key limitations
of situational approaches to leadership that we need to address
before concluding this chapter: (1) the extent
of leader flexibility, (2) differences in leader and follower
perceptions, and (3) limited scope.
Leader flexibility.
It is arguable as to the extent that a leader can truly exhibit each
of the styles that are featured in this
chapter. For example, some leaders may simply have a natural
tendency to be task oriented or directive,

while others feel more comfortable being supportive or
participative. In other words, they cannot readily alter
their styles to fit the needs of a given situation. The original
proponents of the inflexible way of considering
situational approaches to leadership, mentioned early in this
chapter, stressed this issue. Overall, while
potential inflexibility may be problematic, we believe that
leaders should at least attempt to be more flexible in
their styles, depending on the situation.
Differences in perceptions.
It should be clear that the models and approaches described in
this chapter rely on the leader’s perceptions
regarding how to proceed in various situations. While the
models help guide the leader, in the end, it boils
down to his or her perceptions regarding situational factors.
However, followers might not have the same
perceptions. So in a particular instance, a leader might use one
or more of the models described in this
chapter and determine that either a directive or consultative
approach should be taken. But followers might
perceive that a facilitative, or even delegative, approach would
be better for them. If there is a difference, who
is right?
In a way, the question is moot, since the leader will choose an
approach that he or she thinks is the best.
Nevertheless, at least to some degree, leadership is a granting
process. That is, leaders cannot lead unless
followers grant or accept a leader’s right to lead them.7 To be
sure, the Vroom/Jago models do to some
extent take this granting process into account. Specifically,
their models ask the question regarding whether
followers would follow a leader’s directive if the leader was to
make a decision on his or her own. But again,

it comes back to the issue of perceptions. If a leader answers
this question as yes but, in reality, followers
would not necessarily follow a decision that was made
autocratically, then there could be problems in terms
of actually getting a decision implemented. The upshot is that
leaders need to be continually questioning
their perceptions of the situation to determine the extent to
which they might be shared by others, especially
followers.
Limited scope.
The situational perspective generally represents a somewhat
reactive, short-term, or maintaining the status
quo approach to effective leadership. But in reality, some
leadership actions should be more long term and
oriented toward change. Moreover, there are a number of
contemporary issues in leadership that are simply
not considered by the situational approach. These issues will be
addressed in the remainder of this book, and
they include such topics as
• ethics and responsibility,
• coaching and providing and accepting feedback,
• diversity,
SAGE
SAGE Books
Page 12 of 19

1.
2.
• team development,
• vision and change, and
• shaping culture.
Videos for This Chapter
The videos for this chapter are most relevant to the path-goal
approach. They each involve the same leader,
and they deal with employees who have unique problems. Those
problems could end up threatening their
own goal fulfillment, as well as the goals of the organization.
Accordingly, the leader must determine which
style of leadership to emphasize in these respective situations.
Video Case 5.1 “Technical Prima Donna”
Brian NeSmith, CEO of Blue Coat Systems, faces a situation in
which a star technical performer, or “Prima
Donna,” cannot seem to get along with coworkers and is
actually being quite damaging to interpersonal
relations in the team.
Video Case 5.2 “Unmotivated Subordinate”
In this video, Brian NeSmith faces a situation with a
subordinate project manager, who seems to lack energy
and enthusiasm at a key point in time (i.e., a “restart mode”)
during which the future of the firm is on the line.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have characterized both inflexible and

flexible ways of thinking about situational
approaches to leadership. We concluded that a more flexible
approach is probably the most practical. The
basic idea is that the leader should alter his or her leadership
style to fit the needs of the situation. Several
approaches were overviewed here. Together, they help to form a
foundation for effective leadership. However,
as also emphasized, the situational perspective does not solve
the entire riddle of what it means to be
effective as a leader. In the remainder of this book, we will
explore more contemporary and strategic ideas
regarding leader effectiveness.
Definitions of Bolded Terms
• Inflexible 56
• Flexible 57
• Demarcation of Control 61
• Fluidity 63
Appendix
Cases in Leader Decision-Making
Apply these instructions for these cases:
For each case below, try to determine a first impression or gut-
level reaction as to which leadership
style that is shown in Figure 5.1 should be used. Then analyze
the case using the Vroom/Jago
models in the text of this chapter. Determine the prescribed
leadership or decision style. Do each in
two ways: (a) time driven and (b) development driven. Note that
in all decision-making contexts,
desirable information is likely to be missing. Nevertheless,
enough information is present in each

case for you to be able to use the Vroom/Jago models.
Does your initial, or gut-level, reaction differ from the ones that
would be determined by the Vroom-
SAGE
SAGE Books
Page 13 of 19
1.
2.
Jago models? If so, why? Are those models picking up on
something that your first impression may
be missing?
Notes:
As mentioned earlier in this chapter, consulting-selling is
significantly different from facilitating-
participating. The degree of power that is shared between leader
and follower(s) is the key
difference. Consulting is very popular with managers because it
is relatively easy, it makes sense in
many situations, and provides for employee input while
allowing the manager to maintain control of
the decision-making process. However, it does not involve true
participation, although it may seem
that the manager is involving employees in his her decision-
making to at least some degree.

Maintaining power through the control over the decision is
significantly different from sharing the
decision-making power, as is the case with the facilitating-
participating style.
Cases 4 and 5 are individual in nature (i.e., one-on-one between
a leader and individual follower),
while the others involve the group as a whole. The diagnostic
questions in the text of this chapter
can be applied to both types of cases.
Here’s a relatively simple example:
• Read Case 1: Office Carpeting below, then return here.
Response: In the time-driven model, one should determine that
the significance of the decision is low.
All shades of the carpet color are acceptable, and the
salespeople will not care very much, since most
of their time is spent out of the office. One should also
determine that the importance of commitment
from the assistant is also low—once installed, the business of
the salespeople will be done without further
consideration of the carpeting. This leads to only one effective,
option—Decide.
In the development-based model, these same determinations
lead to the same option—Decide. Thus, for
Case 1, the time-driven and the development-driven models lead
to the same situational approach to
leadership. However, in other instances, the two models will
often differ in terms of prescribed options. As
a general rule, the time-driven model tends to push the viable
options toward the left side of the continuum
shown in Figure 5.1. Conversely, the development-driven model
pushes the viable options toward the right
side of the continuum.

Case 1: Office Carpeting
You are the office manager of a group of salespeople who spend
most of their time outside of the office on
sales calls (i.e., “outside” salespeople). Your office has been
undergoing some remodeling, and a decision
has to be made regarding the exact shade of the new carpeting
in your offices. To match carpeting in the
rest of the building, you already know that it will be a neutral
color, such as a shade of beige. The company
managing the restoration has sent you a color chart with
carpeting samples. A decision is expected very soon
so that installation can proceed. The question is the extent to
which you should get others involved in this
decision.
Case 2: Border Patrol
You are an experienced commander of a U.S. border patrol unit.
You have a number of personnel reporting
to you with specialties in law enforcement (both aerial and on
the ground), forensic information management,
and medical. The mission of your unit is primarily to enforce
border security. But sometimes it includes
search and rescue of illegal immigrants who may be lost or
facing life-threatening situations (e.g., hunger or
dehydration) in the desert. As such, your border patrol agents
come into contact with a range of individuals,
some of whom may be very dangerous (e.g., armed drug and
human traffickers).
It’s the middle of June, and temperatures are above average,
even for this time of year. At 9 p.m. this evening,
your unit received information that a group of illegal
immigrants had been spotted in your enforcement

SAGE
SAGE Books
Page 14 of 19
corridor. The intelligence (“intel”) in this communication
suggested that a number of the individuals in the
group might be suffering from emergency medical issues, such
as dehydration. Moreover, there is information
to suggest that female members of the group have been, or
potentially could be, victims of sexual assault.
However, others in the group were considered to be armed and
dangerous, which would complicate any
rescue attempt. Given the time of year, lives could be lost if no
action is taken quickly. On the other hand, the
safety of your team must be considered, especially since it’s the
middle of the night, which always creates
more dangerous circumstances. The safety issue for your team is
accentuated by the fact that your team is
currently understaffed, making nighttime rescues even more
dangerous.
You have dealt successfully with such rescue situations before,
and you have significant expertise of your
own to handle these types of decision-making situations. A
decision must be made shortly about whether
to proceed quickly with a rescue attempt that might
simultaneously involve an arrest and “takedown” of
dangerous individuals. If you delay the attempt till daylight, it
is quite likely that lives will be lost, or serious

injury could be suffered, and the illegal immigrant group in
question might scatter, making rescue and arrests
much more difficult. However, if you move forward quickly,
you will greatly increase the risks for your team.
You have much confidence in your team regarding their
individual know-how and conscientiousness about
their responsibilities and mission. However, you have seen some
divisiveness and counterproductive conflict
in their team decision-making on prior occasions (e.g., opinions
about how an actual rescue and/or takedown
should proceed). Accordingly, in this instance, you believe that
they might be divided on the decision of
whether and how an immediate rescue should be planned and
executed. The resulting conflict only results
in time being wasted in these types of situations. How should
your decision-making process proceed, and to
what degree should your team be involved in that process?
Case 3: Operations Problem
You are the plant manager of a pillow factory in the midwestern
part of the United States. Approximately
a year ago, it became evident that your factory and other
factories within the firm could be doing better in
terms of both production and quality. Operations experts at the
corporate level searched for ways to increase
production and quality at the firm’s factories. They recently
lobbied for, and got members of top management
to agree to, the implementation of a new work system at the
firm’s factories that, among other things,
simplifies job tasks by making them more repetitive. But to
their surprise, expected increases in productivity
have not been realized, at least at your factory. In fact,
production and quality have dropped, and to make
matters worse, the amount of employee turnover has risen,

which has only served to increase your costs.
You suspect that certain aspects of the new work system may be
responsible for the deteriorating
performance. This view is largely shared among your
management team, which includes several production
supervisors (each in charge of a section of the factory), as well
as your supply chain and human resource
managers and comptroller. Together, they have a great deal of
expertise in operational, financial, and people-
oriented issues. In one-on-one discussions with you, they have
suggested that the drop in production and
quality (as well as increased turnover) might be attributable to
things such as poor training of the operators,
too much repetition in job tasks, lack of the ability to talk with
fellow employees while doing job tasks, and poor
morale. Clearly this is an issue about which there is
considerable depth of knowledge, feeling, and concern.
In the past, your management team in the factory has shown that
they truly want the organization to succeed,
and if given the opportunity, they can work together to make it
happen. Also in the past, you have shown a
tendency to include the management team in your decision-
making processes, and they are accustomed to
such involvement.
Today, you had a phone call with the chief operation officer of
the firm. She had just received your production
figures for the last six months and was calling to express her
concerns. She indicated that the problem was
yours to solve in any way that you see fit, even if it means
scrapping the new work system that had been
more or less forced upon your factory. But at the same time, she
would like to see definitive improvements in
both production and quality in the near future.

You share her concerns, and you know that your management
team is also concerned and wants things to
improve. The problem is to determine what should be done to
rectify the situation and how to engage in the
SAGE
SAGE Books
Page 15 of 19
appropriate decision-making process to make it happen. In this
particular instance, how should you proceed?
Case 4: Problematic Accountant
You are a manager of a regional accounting firm. Your firm
prides itself in providing more “hometown,”
or personalized, customer service, as compared to the major
accounting firms. You have a staff of eight
junior accountants reporting to you, each of whom engages with
clients in the field. You recently received a
complaint about one of these individuals from a long-term
client. It was clear that the client was dissatisfied
with this particular accountant, and she gave some specific
examples of missed deadlines and other aspects
of faulty performance. Obviously, you are concerned, since you
want to retain the client’s business.
The individual accountant in question has been with the firm for
a number of years. He specializes in how
information systems can be linked to accounting and, in the

past, has been very good at his job. He is used
to making his own decisions rather than being told what to do.
But recently, there has been a big change in
his demeanor. While he used to be committed to the firm, now it
is not as clear as to the degree that he cares
about his work and responsibilities. Indeed, evidently the
problem is not just this one client. Not that long ago,
another client told you that the individual seemed to be acting
strangely and even hinted at possible drinking
or substance abuse issues.
Undoubtedly, the individual in question has valuable skills and
experience, and it would be very difficult to find
a suitable replacement. Your instincts tell you that this person
could be helped, and his performance return to
what it used to be, but you don’t know what the problem is, nor
how to counsel him. Should you just tell him
what to do or what needs to be changed? Should you consult
with him and then lay down an action plan for
how he should proceed? Should you facilitate a discussion with
him, whereby you mutually devise an action
plan with which you both can live? Should you present your
perceptions of the problem to him and then just
let him solve the problem on his own?
Case 5: Replacing an Employee
Six months ago you were brought in as a director in a
management consulting firm. Your appointment was
partially due to a decision to gradually eliminate a small unit in
the firm under your control that deals largely
with government-based contracts and grants. You have
experience in such downsizing efforts. From the
outset, it was a tricky situation, since people would have to be
let go from the unit in question if natural attrition
did not occur pretty quickly.

After arriving at your new job, it gradually became apparent
that natural attrition would not realize the
elimination of the unit in question within a reasonable period of
time. Accordingly, you had to make it known
to the remaining employees in the unit in question that they
only had several months to find new employment.
Although unforeseen, an employee in a totally separate unit
started to think that her own unit was the next
one to be eliminated (even though that really was not the case).
Although you really did not want to lose this
person, she found what she claimed to be a better job with a
better salary, and she resigned, giving only a
two-week notice. You tried to persuade this person (Person A)
to rethink the matter, but it was clear to you
that this individual was fearful of losing her job without
adequate warning. Moreover, she seemed to be happy
to leave your organization and move on. Nevertheless, her
departure will be a loss because of Person A’s
superb technical skills.
You began an immediate search for a new employee to replace
Person A, hoping to find someone who could
start as soon as possible, even before Person A was to leave.
You need an individual who is competent in
various types of statistical analyses and database management,
who is highly experienced in working with
such computer statistical software as SPSS, and who is able and
motivated to work with clients to help solve
their problems.
You have learned about three promising candidates through
some personal contacts that you possess.
They appear to have the kind of educational background that
you require, but you know little about their
familiarity with the computer software required for the job and

other aspects of their technical abilities. These
SAGE
SAGE Books
Page 16 of 19
requirements are really out of the realm of your personal
expertise. The individual most knowledgeable about
these issues and most able to evaluate the abilities of the job
candidates, at least in the short term, is your
present data analysis specialist, Person A. You hope to reach a
decision among the three candidates by next
week. The question in your mind is whether and how, or to what
degree, you should try to involve Person A
in your decision-making about her replacement.
Case 6: Leading a Research Project
You are the designated leader of a research project at a
multinational, social media firm based out of the
United States. Your boss has made it clear that it’s important
that your project should lead directly to a
marketable product within a relatively short period of time. But
at the same time, you realize that you work in
an organization in which the reporting lines are unclear, and
project leaders such as yourself do not have a
lot of authority to make decisions on their own.
You personally have a lot of experience in projects of this
nature as both a researcher and project leader.

Those projects have typically culminated in successful,
marketable products for your firm, and you have
personally been recognized for that success. Thus, you are very
confident in your assessment of the actions
and directions that need to be taken to make the project
successful.
There are four other individuals on this project. While you are
based in the United States, these other
individuals are located in China (and they are Chinese
nationals). One of those individuals is very assertive,
and she has tried to take on an informal leadership role for the
project. Indeed, the other Chinese members
of the team tend to look at this individual as an informal leader,
and they often side with her, rather than you,
on various issues. However, based on your assessment, her
judgment and experience (as well as that of the
other three individuals) with the issues pertaining to this project
are lacking. Moreover, the informal leader’s
attempt to influence is holding up the progress of the overall
team. Complicating the matter is that she is highly
confident in her own decision-making to positively affect the
team, although you think that such confidence is
misguided. If she continues to project her influence so
aggressively, the project will likely not be successful or
completed within its tight schedule. On the other hand, one
good thing is that you all want the project and the
organization to succeed.
It is important to have all members of the team committed to the
same course of action that is taken by the
team, or else there could be setbacks that could throw the team
off schedule. The question in your mind
is whether to attempt to force your opinions by imposing your
influence on team members, especially the
informal leader, or should you attempt to be more facilitative in

your actions?
Case 7: Planning a Doctoral Program
You are the dean of a relatively new business school at a major
state university. Up until this point in time,
the school has delivered only undergraduate and master’s-level
programs. However, as the school has grown
and matured, it is becoming increasingly clear that you should
start to think about whether a doctoral program
should be added to the school’s offerings. If such a decision is
made, it would have implications for the faculty,
use of school resources, and relationships with other units
within the university’s structure. In addition, there
are a number of directions that the school might take, such as
establishing its own independent doctoral
program or, alternatively, attempting to partner with some other
unit on campus, or even another university, to
deliver the program.
You have assembled a committee of faculty members and other
administrators within the school (e.g., a
department chair and the graduate program director) to study
possibilities. The goal is to decide if the school
should indeed pursue a doctoral program and, if so, which
direction it should take in the planning process.
These individuals are among the most accomplished faculty
members of the school. Moreover, they are
generally in agreement with the organization’s goals and new
initiatives, and they are able to work together
as a group relatively effectively.
Any plan that is established will need the commitment of the
type of faculty members who are on the
SAGE

SAGE Books
Page 17 of 19
committee in order to ensure that it is properly carried out. If
there is resistance or apathy, the plan could
fail (i.e., an unsuccessful doctoral program). You estimate that
such resistance or apathy could be possible
if you attempt to plan or make decisions relative to a doctoral
program based on your own authority.
Realistically, you have only a moderate amount of experience or
expertise with regard to doctoral programs,
since the university at which you have worked over most of
your career did not have such a program.
Moreover, personal supervision or mentoring is key to doctoral
programs, and you have never supervised
doctoral students yourself. At the same time, a number of
people on the committee have more experience,
including the supervision of doctoral students at other
universities at which they have worked. Despite these
considerations, like other initiatives in the school, you will
ultimately be responsible for the success or failure
of any doctoral program that may be established.
The question is how you should proceed. Should you just come
up with the plan on your own? Should you
consult with the committee and then design an action plan for
how the school should proceed? Should you
facilitate a discussion with the committee whereby you mutually
devise an action plan? Should you present
your perceptions of the problem to the committee, briefly

discuss potential alternative directions, and then just
let them solve the problem on their own (i.e., come up with
their own plan)?
Case 8: Vacation Scheduling
You are in charge of a relatively large automobile service
center. For the most part, you allow your mechanics
and technicians a high degree of autonomy with regard to how
they technically handle their service
assignments on particular cars that are in your facility for
servicing. If they need help or advice in particular
instances, they are encouraged to consult with each other or
consult with you.
On the other hand, when it comes to decisions or policy-making
that would pertain to the service center
as a whole, you have almost always been more autocratic in
your decision-making approach. These
decisions pertain to such things as work standards (i.e.,
productivity), personal time scheduling, and vacation
scheduling. One thing that you have noticed is that although
your employees take their work seriously, they
can often be very selfish about their own needs rather than
understanding or caring about the needs of
the greater organization or their coworkers. For example, you
have recently allowed employees to go to a
four-day-a-week work schedule if they so desire. The idea is
that they would have extra allowance for the
scheduling of their own personal time activities (e.g., doctor
appointments). However, a number of employees
have tried to use scheduled work hours for such personal time
activities, not realizing (or not caring about)
the strain that it can put on scheduling and the performance of
the service center.

You recently attended a leadership development workshop that
stressed the value of being more of a
participative leader. As a result of the workshop, you began to
wonder if you should try to be more involving
in your decision-making when it comes to things like setting
work standards or scheduling. It is now the end
of spring, and you will need to attend to summer vacation
scheduling, something for which you have much
experience in the past. In prior years, you have been very
concerned about people taking vacations at the
same time, more senior workers wanting to usurp authority by
demanding only certain times for their vacation
(even if they have not been performing especially well), and so
forth. Accordingly, you have simply set the
summer vacation schedule yourself, and people have come to
expect you to do so. But as a result of the
workshop, you are now questioning your autocratic approach.
Should you now allow some degree of input
from employees; should you allow them into the decision-
making process as equal partners; or should you
even just delegate the task of determining the unit’s vacation
schedule out to them as a team?
Endnotes
1. Throughout this chapter, we will generally use the term
situational approaches to leadership. Other similar
terms have also been used by various writers on the topic of
leadership, such as contingency leadership. In
essence, these terms are synonymous and interchangeable.
2. It should be noted that a number of years ago, the leadership
scholar Fred Fiedler put forth an inflexible
approach based on the favorableness of the situation. While
receiving some support for his research, the

SAGE
SAGE Books
Page 18 of 19
organizations##i1001
practical implications of his work are not very straightforward.
Thus, we do not cover his theory here. But for
more information on the work of Fiedler, including a critique,
see Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations
(7th ed., pp. 225–228). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3. The path-goal theory of leadership has been around for some
time now, although it is still relevant to
effective leadership today. In this chapter, we build upon
existing ways of thinking about path-goal leadership,
but we take the concept further to reflect more modern times.
For classic articles on this form of leadership,
see House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leadership
effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly,
16, 321–338; and House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). A
path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of
Contemporary Business, Autumn, 81–97.
4. Disciplines such as economics, finance, and strategic
management focus more on the nature or quality of
actual decisions that are made by leaders.

5. See Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1982). Management of
organizational behavior: Utilizing human
resources (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6. Our presentation here is adapted from the following work:
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new
leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; and Vroom, V. H.
(2000). Leadership and the decision-making process.
Organizational Dynamics, 28(4), 82–94.
7. For more information on the process of leadership granting,
see DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who
will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership
identity construction in organizations. Academy
of Management Review, 35, 627–647.
• situational approach to leadership
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781544360508.n5
SAGE
SAGE Books
Page 19 of 19

https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781544360508.n5SAGE
BooksLeadership for OrganizationsThe Situational Approach to
LeadershipThe Situational Approach to LeadershipLearning
ObjectivesInflexibleFlexiblePath-Goal
LeadershipHersey/Blanchard Approach to Decision-Making
Based on the SituationDecision-making styles.Figure 5.1 Leader
Decision-Making StylesDemarcation of
ControlFluidityVroom/Jago Approach to Decision-Making
Based on the SituationFigure 5.2 Time-Sensitive Model—
Appropriate Decision-Making StyleFigure 5.3 Follower
Development Model—Appropriate Decision-Making
StylePutting Situational Approaches to Leadership in
PerspectiveLeader flexibility.Differences in perceptions.Limited
scope.Videos for This ChapterVideo Case 5.1 “Technical Prima
Donna”Video Case 5.2 “Unmotivated
Subordinate”ConclusionDefinitions of Bolded
TermsAppendixCases in Leader Decision-MakingCase 1: Office
CarpetingCase 2: Border PatrolCase 3: Operations ProblemCase
4: Problematic AccountantCase 5: Replacing an EmployeeCase
6: Leading a Research ProjectCase 7: Planning a Doctoral
ProgramCase 8: Vacation SchedulingEndnotes

SAGE Books Leadership for Organizations The Situationa.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to SAGE Books Leadership for Organizations The Situationa.docx

Similar to SAGE Books Leadership for Organizations The Situationa.docx (20)

More from WilheminaRossi174

More from WilheminaRossi174 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

SAGE Books Leadership for Organizations The Situationa.docx