Situational leadership applies to individuals and teams

Situational leaders select the right leadership style for the person and their goal.

Leaders have different styles, and those styles are more effective when the follower’s culture is considered ((Goleman)). A directive style is expected in cultures with a high power distance, while a coaching style fits with a collaborative culture. This information might cause a leader to think of leadership styles only in the context of teams. Identify the team’s culture, select the leadership style that best fits the culture, and all will be well. Blanchard takes another perspective.

Instead of culture-first leadership style selection, Blanchard focuses on individuals and their current goals. The leader diagnoses the personal competence and commitment to the goal the follower is trying to achieve. This gives the leader insight into the follower’s current developmental state and allows her to choose a leadership style that suits the follower. As the follower develops competence and commitment, the leader shifts to accommodate the follower’s new needs. Even further, the leader does not select a single style per individual, but a style per goal. This can result in leadership styles that change, not only with the team, not only with the individual, but with the individual’s goals ((Blanchard)).

Whatever factors a leader uses to select a leadership style, both Goleman and Blanchard agree that leadership styles aren’t a one-size-fits-all. A wise leader considers the people she leads and shifts her style to best meet the leadership needs she sees in front of her today. This is important in a startup because employees aren’t going to need the same leadership style at the beginning of the startup to the end. Those who sign on to a startup will need strong direction from the entrepreneur but little support. As the difficulty of the startup becomes apparent, the entrepreneur must give both direction and support to bolster flagging spirits. When the employee’s competence has been established, the entrepreneur needs to offer less direction while continuing to support. Finally, when employees have both competence and commitment, the entrepreneur can leave them to execute their responsibilities and focus on others. An entrepreneur who doesn’t make these transitions will frustrate her employees and make her leadership role more heavy to bear. For example, stuck in direct and support mode, an entrepreneur can be burnt out by the high needs of her employees. If she keeps the same high direction, low support that she began with, her employees may decide the startup life is too intense and quit.

Blanchard’s parable has the advantage of a closed system - everything fits perfectly. While the concepts seem applicable, the dissonance of the parable with real-world examples can make application a challenge. In theory, a manager should consider the developmental step of each direct report for each goal they’ve set. With the difficulty people have even setting SMART goals and the over-worked nature of most managers, the one-minute manager seems a fictitious dream. My application is to focus on the early step, the setting of SMART goals, and to determine where I stand in competence and commitment with each. I can use these as examples to help others set goals, discern their competence/commitment, and ask for a style that fits their needs.

References