Review of Situational Leadership® After 25 Years: A Retrospective (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Nelson, 19

Review of Situational LeadershipÂŽ After 25 Years - A Retrospective (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Nelson, 1993) The situational leadership theory holds that leaders should change their style based on the competence and commitment of followers. This prĂŠcis critiques Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Nelson's (1993) research article on the subject, which offered a 25-year retrospective of the Situational Leadership Model, one of the more widely recognized approaches to leadership.

Olivier Serrat 19/05/2018

1 Yukl (2013) identified that three variables help understand leadership effectiveness: (a) characteristics of leaders, (b) characteristics of followers, and (c) characteristics of the situation1 (p. 10). The Situational Leadership Model by Hersey and Blanchard, which looks into the characteristics of a situation, is one of the more widely recognized approaches to leadership.2 The Situational Leadership Model maintains that there is no single "best" style of leadership: effective leadership is task-relevant and successful leaders are those who adapt their style to the Performance Readiness (ability and willingness) of the individual(s) or group(s) they mean to lead or influence; to this intent, since influencing behavior is not an event but a process, they diagnose, adapt, communicate, and advance. In 1993, Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Nelson wrote a retrospective of the Situational Leadership Model ahead of the May 1994 meeting of the American Society of Training and Development, this to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Situational Leadership (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Nelson, 1993).

The Research Article 1. Purpose of the Research The purpose of Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Nelson (1993) was to review work that led to the development of the Situational Leadership Model, revisions that subsequently improved the model, and research that (as of 1993) had been conducted using the revised model and related instrumentation. [And so, Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Nelson (1993) is not about "pure" research.]

To note, the purpose of the research was not made explicit in Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Nelson (1993), and can only be found in the short executive summary.3 Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Nelson (1993) was essentially retrospective (and so addressed no particular question): ostensibly, the research article was intended to locate the early background of the Situational Leadership Model, summarize the leadership theories the authors explained it evolved from, look back at the evolution of leadership theories, and highlight what improvements were made to the model over the years (essentially in relation to an instrument called Leader Behavior Analysis and the 1

For each variable, Yukl (2013) gave examples of what might be termed drivers. He identifies those that impact the characteristics of the situation, with which the research article concerns itself, to be (a) the type of organizational unit, (b) the size of organizational unit, (c) the position power and authority of leader, (d) the task structure and complexity, (e) organizational culture, (f) environmental uncertainty and change, (g) external dependencies and constraints, and (h) national cultural values.

2 Inspired by the changing leadership style needed by parents as a child grows from infancy through adolescence to adulthood, the Situational Leadership Model was introduced as the Life Cycle Theory of Leadership in 1969 and first appeared in Management of Organizational Behavior (Blanchard & Hersey, 1969); as of 2012, the book was in its tenth edition. The Life Cycle Theory of Leadership was rebranded as the Situational Leadership Model in the mid1970s, with both authors iterating on the original theory until 1977 (when they parted company).

In brief, the authors characterized leadership style in terms of the amount of Directive Behavior and Supportive Behavior that a leader provides to his or her followers (e.g., Directing, Coaching, Supporting, or Delegating), that being a function of maturity levels (e.g., Very Capable and Confident, Capable but Unwilling, Unable but Confident, or Unable and Insecure). Next, a good leader would develop competence and commitment so followers become self-motivated rather than dependent on others for direction and guidance.

3 Typically, an executive summary is a short document—or section of a document—that summarizes the latter in such a way that readers can rapidly become acquainted with the large body of material without having to read it all. The executive summary in the research article is five lines-long and serves only to set the scene.

2 relabeling of the four leadership styles). But, Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Nelson (1993) was also forward-looking in that some conclusions were reached and a couple of research needs were identified.

2. Literature Review What key theories were cited in Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Nelson (1993) will be familiar to all students of management and organizational leadership: they included classic texts by Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958), Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1960), as well as Blake and Mouton (1964). The cited sources were pertinent to the subject, contemporary to the times when the Situational Leadership Model was being developed, and central to the authors' argument that the Situational Leadership Model was an evolution of related leadership theories on continuum approaches: "[The] approach was to build historically on the models that preceded them" (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Nelson, 1993, p. 23). In support of the Situational Leadership Model, the authors took care to note that, "While useful, one of the limitations with the continuum approach to leadership [was] that it was an either/or approach. Either you were autocratic or democratic or somewhere in between—and if you didn't do either, you were laissez-faire" (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Nelson, 1993, p. 23). Given the state of related leadership theories at the time the Situational Leadership Model was being developed, the literature review in Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Nelson (1993) is considered broad enough.

Given the retrospective nature of the piece, it may not be relevant to search for bias in Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Nelson (1993). Yes, the research article was written by one of the original developers of the Situational Leadership Model and two of his colleagues. And, it was self-serving in that the two original developers parted ways in the late 1970s to each establish consultancies hoping to cash in on practical applications of the Situational Leadership Model, and in that the research article hoped to fuel continuing interest. But, given its primary purpose, could the Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Nelson (1993) have been expected to entertain contrarian views?

3. Methodology Having listed what improvements had been made to the Situational Leadership Model over the years, Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Nelson (1993) explained that 50 dissertations, master's theses, and research papers had been written using the Leader Behavior Analysis instrument designed by one of the original developers and associates. Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Nelson (1993) shared that a comprehensive summary of findings was available in Zigarmi, Edeburn, and Blanchard (1991) and proceeded to present a general synopsis, noting that "pure" demographic studies had yielded almost no significance between such variables as age, gender, experience, education levels, and so forth. And so, the research design drew entirely from that original study. For clarity, Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Nelson (1993) noted that, to understand research trends on the Situational Leadership Model, readers needed to recognize that both the model and the instrumentation had changed over the years, which caused the research to be confusing and at times inconclusive. However, details of measurement tools, procedures, and variables were not shared in Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Nelson (1993) per se.

4. Data Analysis and Findings As mentioned above, Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Nelson (1993) drew attention to another document for a comprehensive summary of findings from research on situational leadership using the Situational Leadership Model. Details of how the data was analyzed and whether it

3 was qualitative or quantitative were not shared in the research article per se. Evidently, Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Nelson (1993) did not aim to support the hypothesis: it intended to advance the trustworthiness of the Situational Leadership Model.

5. Discussion and Conclusions It was not the purpose of Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Nelson (1993) to produce new knowledge.

Equally, the retrospective nature of Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Nelson (1993) understandably curtailed what limitations there might be to it as the intention was not to find fault but, rather, celebrate the appeal of a model that found its place in related leadership literature. This said, Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Nelson (1993) did make recommendations for future research: prominent among these was that "Work must be done to classify or pinpoint others' competence and commitment around a specific task or goal" (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Nelson, 1993, p. 23).

Moreover, "Greater emphasis should be given to 'match' studies that examine [leadership] style in relation to employee perceived development level on a specific goal or task" (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Nelson, 1993, p. 23). Concluding, Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Nelson (1993) offered definite and practical ways to inform practice even if that was not its avowed intention: given the continuing use of the Situational Leadership Model, what new knowledge might be gained from implementation of its recommendations for further research stands to benefit a large audience.

Overall Assessment of the Research Article Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Nelson (1993) was an easy and pithy introduction to the Situational Leadership Model; excepting minor shortcomings such as lack of clarity about purpose, it delivered what the title advertised in 14 pages of readable text. Notwithstanding, readers would have appreciated a statement to the effect that situational leadership is but one variable: other determinants of leadership effectiveness include the characteristics of leaders, the characteristics of followers, and other characteristics of the situation besides leader–employee relations. More recently, eschewing preoccupation with leadership styles, interest has grown in what situation-specific administrative, adaptive, and enabling modes of leadership can support metagovernance of hierarchy, market, and network forms of organizing.

References Blake, R., & Mouton, J. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

Blanchard, K., & Hersey, P. (1969). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, D., & Nelson, R. (1993). Situational Leadership® after 25 years: A retrospective. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(1), 22–36.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. (1960). Leader behavior and member reaction in three social climates. In D. Cartwright and A. Zander (Eds.). Group dynamics: Research and theory.

Evanston, IL: Row Peterson & Company.

Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. (1958). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review. March–April.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Zigarmi, D., Edeburn, C., & Blanchard, K. (1991). Research on the LBAII: A Validity and Reliability Study. Blanchard Training and Development.