Criticism of Situational Leadership Model

Rating

Criticism of Situational Leadership Model

For me Hersey-Blanchard have, badly, mixed the Managerial Grid and the Tannenbaum-Schmidt Continuum.
Some descriptions are illogical:

1. Coaching is not a management ‘style’ and doesn't correlate with “Telling”. I consider that the 'Manager' role includes leading (management activities are to do with the task aspects [planning, organising &c.] while leading activities are to do with the people aspects [communicating, motivating &c.] These need to be balanced (Blake-Mouton, Adair et al).
2. Although the SL model does distinguish between "low", "some" and "high" competence, it doesn't distinguish trained workers from experienced workers. The S1 aspect relates to Trained Worker Standard but the S2/3 aspects seem confused over the Experienced Worker Standard.
   TRAINED WORKER STANDARD is when the person has been trained and is 'competent' in how to do 'it' while concentrating on and thinking about 'it' but not yet sufficiently practised/experienced to do it "unthinkingly".
   EXPERIENCED WORKER STANDARD. When the person has the full (kinesthetic-'muscle sense) 'feel' of 'it' they are at the Experienced Worker Standard. In this sense it refers to physical activities but the concept is also applicable to thinking (managerial, management, leadership) activities in which routines and processes are carried out as a matter of "second nature". For example sub-consciously adapting ones behaviour to the situation and the experience of the person you are working (managing-leading) with.

		Comments by date▼ Comments by rating Rating
		2 Michael Horwitz Professor, United States
	Analyzing Readiness is not a Problem with SL I’m not sure I understand how you describe a problem with SL. Trained versus experienced only matter when analyzing readiness: is a person able to perform the task at an acceptable and sustainable level? That’s all. Yes or no? Then you look at ability and willingness to further analyze and choose the best approximate behavior that creates movement.

		2 Jaap de Jonge Editor, Netherlands
	Competence Subcategories Missing in Situational Leadership? @Michael Horwitz: The extent to which a person is competent (you call this readiness) or not is one of the 2 main variables that determine how you should lead/manage that person in this job according to the SL model. So it is important. I think I agree with Maurice that being trained plus having experience in the job at hand is another, higher level of competence than only being trained for the job. Could a different leadership style be adopted depending on this difference?

		3 Michael Horwitz Professor, United States
	Readiness in Situational Leadership is Key The first step in the SL model is to determine readiness (not competence) of the follower, which is a defined term and its determination is a described process. It’s a yes or no question that then guides the leader to select the appropriate behavior that meets the followers needs. It’s about successive approximations and creating movement such that the followers move on the path to being able and willing, what is described in the model as readiness level 4. Coaching is a behavior that is inside the S2 leadership style as are several other behaviors. You may choose to disagree, yet it's it this prescriptive process that makes applying the model simple. It’s not about being perfect because in the world of leadership and management we are not seeking perfect, it's about helping the followers on their path to growth and success.

		1 Maurice Hogarth Consultant, United Kingdom
	SL Model Dissonances @Michael Horwitz: Concerns: 1. There are several variations on the style label referents. 2. "Is the person able to perform the task?" "Yes". So they have the ability. On what basis do we "then look at ability..."? 3. The dissonances are too distracting. How do "Directing", S1 and "Telling", S2, differ? Do the situations (S1-S4) relate to the same or different times-conditions, e.g. why would (S2) people be demotivated and unwilling to do the task at the time they are learning it? How does Telling (S2) relate to countering demotivation or equate to Coaching? If the model is about “readiness” for a style of management rather than adaptability for matching a style to particular competence-commitment levels aren't we simply playing with jargon to create a distinction? 4. Have realised that at S2 the individual is in training (by the Leader via Telling/ Coaching). It is at S3 that the individual is fully trained (i.e. TWS) and at S4 when they are at the EWS.

		4 Steve G
	Blanchard Leadership Theory is Correct Most of the comments on shortcomings of the theory reflect the authors failure to understand the theory. Although the theory is a little simplistic in order to fit into the boxes, it is also essentially correct. Many poor leaders do not fundamentally change their leadership style, and are incapable of doing so. For example, some take charge leaders are unable to turn over responsibility to their capable staff -- they micromanage. Leadership is not solely about inspiration. Inspiration without decisions accomplishes nothing. Of course, the book is about management. The point is that good management is actually leadership. Some make a distinction between leadership and management, but that distinction is often made between leadership and poor management. Of course the theory focuses on what leaders "do." A do nothing leader is worthless. We are only what we do. An unexpressed thought persuades no one. We have do do something to persuade, etc.

		1 Maurice Hogarth Consultant, United Kingdom
	Correct Concerns @Steve G: I agree with all of your points. It is because I do not understand the theory, as described, that I have the concerns and the questions arising from the discrepancies and shortfalls noted. Answering them may enable me to understand. Maybe they arise from the simplicity required in order to fit the theory facets into the pre-determined boxes. Re your points on leadership/management I agree totally. One of my mantras (as determined sometime late last century) is that you can have good leadership ability without management ability but you cannot have good management ability without good leadership ability. In terms of what leaders do, that of course was the basis of John Adairs' concept being developed at the time I was being trained as an army officer.

		2 Jaap de Jonge Editor, Netherlands
	Limitations of Situational Leadership Model One more limitation (criticism) of SL is an obvious one, but must not be overlooked. In the SL model, the leaders (managers) only adapt their style to the follower's maturity, based on how ready a...