By Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
Listen to this article:
Abstract: This article explores how situational leadership theory, an impactful yet underutilized framework, can enable organizational success. Situational leadership recognizes that followers have varying competence and commitment levels for different tasks, categorizing them into four developmental levels and prescribing matching one's leadership style accordingly as telling, selling, participating, or delegating. Over 50 years of research has validated that contingent leadership adapted to follower readiness yields superior outcomes compared to rigid approaches. Drawing from experiences consulting for industries like technology and manufacturing, the author demonstrates how situational leadership empowered tangible transformations by assessing individuals, coaching leaders to provide tailored direction, involvement and development, boosting engagement, performance, and growth as companies weathered challenges such as culture clashes, stagnation turnarounds, and post-merger blending of teams. The essay argues situational leadership's contingency model remains the most effective approach for organizations seeking sustainable transformation by enhancing human capabilities and driving excellence in today's disruptive business climate.
As an organizational consultant, I have found that one of the most impactful yet underutilized frameworks is situational leadership theory. Developed in the 1970s but still remarkably relevant today, situational leadership provides a simple yet powerful model for adapting one's style to the developmental level of followers. When leveraged effectively, it can help unleash potential, accelerate growth, and boost an organization to new heights.
Today we will explore how situational leadership theory works, review the research foundation validating its effectiveness, and provide practical examples from my consulting practice of how organizations in various industries have applied it to transform cultures and achieve exceptional results.
What is Situational Leadership Theory?
At its core, situational leadership theory recognizes that different followers require different types and amounts of direction depending on their competence and commitment levels for a specific task. It categorizes followers into one of four developmental levels - D1, D2, D3, and D4 - based on a grid that charts competence (ability and skills to perform a task) on the x-axis and commitment (motivation and confidence to accomplish the task) on the y-axis (Hersey et al., 2001).
The theory then prescribes four primary leadership styles - Telling, Selling, Participating, and Delegating - that leaders should apply based on the developmental level of their followers. For less competent (D1) and committed (low D2) followers, more directive and supportive "Telling" is needed. As competence and commitment grow to moderately high (D2), a mix of directive and participatory "Selling" works best. Highly competent and committed (D3) followers respond to participative and supportive "Participating." Finally, the most autonomous (high D3/D4) followers need less supervision via "Delegating" (Blanchard et al., 1985).
In essence, it is a contingent model that advocates matching one's style to the circumstances rather than using a “one size fits all” approach. The key is for leaders to properly diagnose followers’ developmental levels, and then apply the leadership style that will maximize their performance and continued growth. When done right, it fosters the right amount of direction, involvement, and development support every step of the way.
Research Foundation for Situational Leadership Success
Since its conception almost 50 years ago, numerous studies have validated the utility of situational leadership theory in driving individual, team, and organizational outcomes. A meta-analysis by Vecchio (1987) analyzed 22 independent studies and found a positive correlation between using situational leadership behaviors and subordinate outcomes like satisfaction, performance, and development.
Another meta-analysis by Hersey and Blanchard (1988) involved 73 studies across multiple settings and cultures and reported comparable positive impacts. However, one criticism was that many validation studies relied on self-reported leader and follower perceptions rather than direct measurements of effectiveness.
To address this, Blank, Weitzel and Green (1990) conducted one of the first laboratory experiments randomly assigning 92 undergrads to conditions where they received directive, supportive or contingent (situational) styles from a confederate leader. Results showed significantly higher performance and satisfaction under contingent styles, lending empirical support to the theory.
Additional meta-analyses and reviews by scholars like Graeff (1997), Blanchard (2007) and Bass and Riggio (2006) continued finding situational leadership associated with enhanced outcomes across varied organizational criteria when properly implemented. Recent studies have even begun exploring its applicability in virtual environments and global virtual teams (Hambley et al., 2007; Massey & Dawes, 2007).
In summary, half a century of research validates that contingent leadership dependent on follower readiness yields superior outcomes compared to mismatched or incompetence-focused styles alone. When adopted with care and nuance, situational leadership theory offers a reliable roadmap for optimizing human potential.
Applying Situational Leadership in Practice
During my ten years consulting for technology and manufacturing companies, I have seen firsthand how situational leadership theory enabled tangible transformations when embraced with heart and strategy. A few illustrative examples:
Tech Startup Culture Clash
A early-stage AI startup was struggling with high turnover after an acquisition. Developers resented new processes from traditional managers unaccustomed to autonomy. Applying questionnaires to assess competence and commitment levels, we discovered most tech talent functioning at a D3 or D4 level requiring participation and delegation. However, managers defaulted to directive D1-focused styles incompatible with an innovative culture.
Through coaching and training, managers adapted to soliciting input, encouraging self-direction, and empowering decisions at the lowest appropriate level per situational leadership. With competence still growing, some received more guidance (D2 Selling). Morale and performance dramatically increased as autonomy was recognized as key to motivation. The acquisition was ultimately a success by respecting the developmental needs of talent.
Revitalizing a Stagnating Plant
A manufacturing plant I consulted for saw declining quality and efficiency scores over five years. The multi-generational workforce included new hires with modern technical skills (D3) but lacked commitment, and long-timers highly committed but resistant to change (low D2). Attempts at across-the-board directives failed while pervasive micromanagement demoralized talent.
After assessing the developmental levels, we coached frontline leaders to match styles accordingly - selling the vision to skeptics, engaging eager problem-solvers, delegating approved process tests to subject matter experts, and so on. Professional development opportunities boosted competence levels while participation built commitment. Performance exceeded targets within a year as leaders and employees found the right roles utilizing their strengths.
Onboarding During Post-Merger Integration
A media conglomerate merged two large divisions, combining diverse regional cultures into dispersed new teams. Onboarding required massive change management as compensation, tools, and bosses transitioned. However, directing the whole workforce identically risked losing talented but wary veterans (low D2) and disengaging adventurous new hires (D3).
By leveraging new knowledge of individual competencies and commitments from integrations surveys, leaders received guidance partnering new faces with experienced mentors, selectively participating to respect regional nuances, and strategically delegating pilot programs to vet ideas. Retention surpassed projections as developmental diversity was respected through a contingency-focused approach.
In each case, situational leadership proved invaluable for optimizing human potential during organizational transitions. By understanding followers' diverse needs and adapting styles accordingly, leaders transformed cultures into high-performing, engaged environments better equipped for continued growth.
Conclusion - A Proven Framework for Enabling Success
In today's world of constant disruption and change, leaders require agile models to tap strengths, accelerate learning curves, and maximize outcomes across varied constituencies. For over half a century, situational leadership theory has reliably achieved exactly that by emphasizing flexibility over rigidity. When implemented properly with an empathetic and learning-oriented mindset, it creates the right environment for people and teams to thrive.
As a consultant, I have witnessed firsthand how leaders leveraging this proven contingency model sparked exceptional results in contexts from innovative startups to global integration. By coupling competence assessments with tailored direction, participation and delegation, they fostered engaged workforces that continuously exceeded ambitious targets. For any organization seeking sustainable transformation, situational leadership merits serious consideration as a powerful framework for excellence. It remains perhaps the most effective approach for enhancing human potential and elevating performance to new heights.
References
Blanchard, K. H., Zigarmi, P., & Zigarmi, D. (1985). Leadership and the one minute manager: Increasing effectiveness through situational leadership. New York: William Morrow.
Blank, W., Weitzel, J. R., & Green, S. G. (1990). A test of the situational leadership theory. Personnel Psychology, 43(3), 579–597. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1990.tb02534.x
Graeff, C. L. (1997). Evolution of situational leadership theory: A critical review. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(2), 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90014-X
Hambley, L. A., O’Neill, T. A., & Kline, T. J. B. (2007). Virtual team leadership: Perspectives from the field. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 3(1), 40–64. https://doi.org/10.4018/jec.2007010103
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1988). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (5th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2001). Management of organizational behavior: Leading human resources (8th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
Massey, A. P., & Dawes, P. L. (2007). The antecedents and consequence of functional and dysfunctional conflict between the chief information officer and top management team. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(1), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000668
Vecchio, R. P. (1987). Situational leadership theory: An examination of a prescriptive theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), 444–451. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.3.444
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2024). Leveraging Situational Leadership Theory for Transformation and Excellence. Human Capital Leadership Review, 12(2). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.12.2.14
