Embracing Situational Leadership in the Workplace

Embracing Situational Leadership in the Workplace

Leadership in the workplace is not a one-size-fits-all endeavor. The dynamic nature of team composition, individual personalities, and specific job roles requires leaders to be versatile and adaptable.

Over the years, we’ve seen a proliferation of various leadership styles, based on studies and findings by several accomplished leadership researchers, which include Robert K. Greenleaf, Karl Lewis, Daniel Goleman, and Bruce Avolio, each with its own unique way of guiding teams and achieving goals. Here’s a quick rundown of some common leadership styles:

Psychologist Kurt Lewin developed a foundational leadership framework in the 1930s, defining three major leadership styles: autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire.

Autocratic Leadership:

Although Lewin coined the term, the idea of autocratic leadership has been around for quite a while and it’s a core tenet of classical management theory, which became popular in the early 20th century. This theory posits that consulting groups of subordinates is unnecessary. Instead, the leader makes a decision, and that decision is conveyed in a top-down manner for all employees to follow.

Thus, an autocratic leadership style puts the manager at the top of the pyramid on a team. They make decisions and control projects without soliciting input from team members or other stakeholders.

Pros	Cons
Fast decision-making No wavering on judgment	Failure to inspire and motivate employees Lack of diverse input into decisions Little opportunity for employee development and advancement
Examples: Steve Jobs (co-founder of Apple Inc.), Henry Ford (founder of Ford Motors), Elon Musk (CEO of SpaceX)

Democratic Leadership:

Daniel Goleman expanded on Lewin’s ideas of leadership by adding two important elements to the definition of democratic leadership: empowerment and consensus-seeking.

A democratic leadership style, opposite of autocratic, puts the voice of the team at the forefront of decision-making. The leader seeks input from subordinates and other stakeholders to drive the vision and direction of projects.

Pros	Cons
Diversity of perspectives Strengthens a company’s ability to serve a broad customer base Inspires and engages employees Improves innovation	Slow decision-making Can lead to dead ends and stalemates that prevent projects from moving forward Can cause a lack of cohesion in project elements
Examples: Tony Hsieh (former CEO of Zappos, an online shoe and clothing retailer), Richard Branson (founder of Virgin Group, a conglomerate that includes more than 400 companies), Indra Nooyi (former CEO of PepsiCo), Reed Hastings (co-founder and CEO of Netflix)

Laissez-Faire Leadership:

Laissez-faire leadership, also known as delegative leadership, is a type of leadership style in which leaders are hands-off and allow group members to make the decisions. Researchers have found that this leadership style often leads to the lowest productivity among group members.

Pros	Cons
Room for employees to be creative and innovative Encourages employees to strengthen leadership and problem-solving skills	Leaves green employees feeling lost and unsupported Lack of direction and cohesion for projects and teams No clear vision or objectives for employees to work toward
Examples: President Herbert Hoover (His hands-off strategy and belief that a strong economic system would fix itself made it difficult for the United States to emerge from the Great Depression)

Servant Leadership:

Servant-leadership, first proposed by Robert K. Greenleaf in 1970, is a theoretical framework that advocates a leader’s primary motivation and role.

A servant leadership style puts employees’ needs, growth and professional development ahead of the needs of the manager, company or project. It prioritizes team bonding and employee well-being.

Pros	Cons
Employees feel heard and engaged Fosters team cohesion and care Accounts for diverse employee circumstances and needs	Ignores project and business objectives Can lead to inefficiency and failed goals Goal-oriented employees might feel bored or unmotivated
Examples: FedEx (‘people-service-profit’), Marriott (‘people first’ philosophy)

While these leadership styles each have their strengths and weaknesses, a theory that we find has regained popularity when it comes to addressing the leadership needs of teams and employees is the Situational Leadership Model.

Dr. Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard synthesized 50 years of research on the behavior of leaders and followers to develop the Situational Leadership® Model in 1969. They believed that there is no “one size fits all” leadership style. The model provides a framework for leaders to match their behaviors with the performance needs of the individual or group that they are attempting to lead. In other words, the model is about adapting the directive and supportive behaviors that leaders use to match the Performance Readiness® of others to perform specific tasks or functions.

In the late 1970s/early 1980s, Hersey and Blanchard both developed their own slightly divergent versions of the framework – The Situational Leadership Model (Hersey) and the Situational Leadership II model (Blanchard et al.). While slightly different in terminology, the fundamental principle of the situational leadership model is the same in both – that there is no single “best” style of leadership; effective leadership is task-relevant; and that most successful leaders are those who adapt their leadership style to the performance readiness (ability and willingness) of the individual.

The Four Quadrants of Situational Leadership

The Situational Leadership® model has four leadership styles. Each of these may be used, depending on the Performance Readiness® of the team or team member performing a task

Telling (S1) Telling, or directing, is essential when a team or member needs close supervision. The leader provides high directive and low supportive behavior, offering clear instructions for novices or taking charge in emergencies.	Selling (S2) Selling, or persuading, is effective when a team or member is willing but unable to perform a task. The leader uses two-way communication and reinforces small successes to build skills and encourage buy-in to a larger vision.
Participating (S3) Participating, or sharing, is effective when a team or member has the ability but lacks confidence or willingness. Leaders use a democratic style, inviting team input and providing support to boost confidence.	Delegating (S4) Delegating is effective when a team or member is skilled, confident, and self-motivated. Leaders set a vision, outline outcomes, and grant authority, then adopt a supportive role, allowing the team to take charge.

These Situational Leadership® styles are most effective when aligned with the matching Performance Readiness® level of the team members for performing the specific task.

The 4 types of Performance Readiness

Unable and Insecure or Unwilling (R1) These team members lack specific skills for a task and may feel insecure or unwilling. A directive style (S1), where the leader clearly instructs them on what to do, how, and when, can be effective. What can help? Pairing them with experienced peers for side-by-side guidance can accelerate their skill development.	Unable but Confident or Willing (R2) For team members with some skills but who aren’t yet fully capable or engaged, a coaching leadership style (S2) is ideal. Leaders should coach them in problem-solving and actively involve them in the process. What can help? To boost commitment, recognize their specific contributions and support their development needs.
Able but Insecure or Unwilling (R3) These highly skilled team members, though experts, may lack confidence or have insecurity in performing a new task. The ideal leadership style here is S3, which supports and encourages risk-taking. What can help? Leverage their desire for impact and sense of purpose to help them apply their skills and knowledge to the challenge.	Able and Confident and Secure (R4) For highly skilled and confident team members, the best leadership style is delegation (S4). In this approach, leaders empower team members to work independently towards agreed-upon goals. What can help? Leaders should share organizational goals clearly, enabling team members to make informed decisions.

Why Situational Leadership Matters Today?

While the theory requires a lot from those in charge, and it might seem daunting at first, the more leaders practice situational leadership and learn to pay attention to detail, the easier it becomes to evaluate teams and make decisions based on team members’ performance readiness.

As teams and organizations move from being skill to strength-based, situational leadership becomes ever more pertinent in order to truly harness the potential of team members. It allows for mentoring, coaching and nurturing in ways specific to how each individual learns and develops themselves. Further, in today’s diverse workplace, where DEI&B (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, & Belonging) principles are paramount, recognizing and adapting to the unique identities, strengths, and blind spots of each employee is crucial. Most, importantly, Situational Leadership allows for the practice of Empathy. When practicing this approach, leaders must get to know each team member and assess their strengths and weaknesses. Learning more about their employees helps leaders make the right decisions for them and for the group.

Our Approach at Syngrity

At Syngrity, we have embraced the Situational Leadership Model and integrated it into our training programs through a gamified approach using Building Blocks. This innovative method, ideal for emerging leaders and first time managers, provides participants with an introduction to the theory and an opportunity to demonstrate and refine their leadership styles in a dynamic and engaging environment, preparing them to meet the diverse needs of their teams.

To learn more about how Syngrity can help you develop effective leadership strategies tailored to your team’s needs, reach out to us. Together, we can unlock the full potential of your workforce and drive success in today’s ever-evolving workplace.

Shivangi Banerjee is a Project Coordinator at Syngrity. She holds dual master’s degrees in Psychology, with a focus on Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, and Criminology (with specialization in Forensic Psychology). Shivangi has a keen interest in leadership and organizational development, with a focus on how leaders can navigate complex challenges and foster inclusive organizational environments.