160 likes | 506 Views
Team Teach Project: Situational Leadership. Sara Norman Nazia Ali Gretchen Messersmith Stephen Hartgrove. Origins of Situational Leadership. Hersey and Blanchard first developed the theory in 1969. Life Cycle Theory of Leadership.
E N D
Team Teach Project: Situational Leadership Sara Norman Nazia Ali Gretchen Messersmith Stephen Hartgrove
Origins of Situational Leadership • Hersey and Blanchard first developed the theory in 1969. • Life Cycle Theory of Leadership. • The theory has been used in organizational leadership training and development. • In 1985, Blanchard, et al. developed a model called Situational Leadership II model that intensified the movement. • Based on Fiedler’s Contingency Theory and House’s Path-Goal Theory of Leadership.
An Overview of Situational Leadership • Variety • Leader Adaptation • Two dimensional • Correlation of styles • No universal style • Directive and supportive behaviors • Prescriptive
The Leadership Styles • S1: High directive-low supportive (Directing) • S2: High directive-high supportive (Coaching) • S3: High supportive-low directive (Supporting) • S4: Low-supportive-low directive (Delegating)
The Subordinate Styles • D1: Lack ability, but high commitment • D2: Some ability, but low commitment • D3: Have high ability but low commitment • D4: High competence, high committed
Dimensions of Situational Leadership • Supportive Dimension • Directional Dimension
Paul Hersey • Hersey has stuck with the “original” form of Situational Leadership since its creation • Based on the original SL • The Center for Situational Leadership Studies • The Situational Leader
Ken Blanchard • Blanchard developed a new model, SLII in the 1980’s. • Apart from Paul Hersey • The Ken Blanchard Companies • “The Leadership Difference” • One-Minute Manager
SLI and SLII • New Theory in the 1980’s • Blanchard: SLII • Hersey: SLI • The two are very similar
Pros • Leader direction • Leader-follower relationships • Easy to understand, applicable • Tells what one should or should not do in various leadership settings • Directing style • Unique needs need attention • Adaptability
Criticisms of the Approach • Not enough studies • Ambiguity • Does not explain the theoretical basis for the changes in the composition of each development level • Leader style/development levels • Demographic characteristics • North American bias • Difficulty in defining quality and job maturity in leadership • Limited empirical support