Have you ever been in a situation where you thought the technique needed to move forward was one thing, yet the person leading (your leader) assumed something else was what was needed? Did you feel misaligned, unheard, marginalized? Would you believe that 54% of all leaders only use ONE style of leadership - regardless of the situation? Does that one style of leading work well for the many levels of development we see on a team?
See Also:
The Ken Blanchard Companies - training and consulting on leadership and value based leadership
Wiki - Situational Leadership II article - along with some criticism - which makes me think that one can not wrangle or manage a bunch of tenured faculty cats. Do you think we could test the theory outside of the ivory tower - in reality maybe?
Perhaps your team should investigate one of the most widely used leadership models in the world ("used to train over 5 million managers in the world’s most respected organizations"). And it's not just for the leaders. The training is most effective when everyone receives the training and uses the model. The use of a ubiquitous language on your team is a collaboration accelerator. When everyone is using the same mental model, speaking the same vernacular hours of frustration and discussion may be curtailed, and alignment achieved, outcomes delivered quickly.
An Explanation of the model - Situational Leadership II
Leaders that are capable of matching their style to the situational needs of the team, increase engagement, commitment and morale. Retention levels rise, and people feel valued and respected. Training both leaders and team members (followers) in the technique demonstrate the Agile/Scrum value of transparency - no hidden agenda, no performance review dog whistles.
I've personally seen how this one technique can have lasting benefit to a team and also to a complete organization.
 |
| Situational Leadership II Model by Ken Blanchard |
The Ken Blanchard Companies - training and consulting on leadership and value based leadership
Wiki - Situational Leadership II article - along with some criticism - which makes me think that one can not wrangle or manage a bunch of tenured faculty cats. Do you think we could test the theory outside of the ivory tower - in reality maybe?
Criticisms
Despite its intuitive appeal, several studies do not support the prescriptions offered by situational leadership theory.[7][8] To determine the validity of the prescriptions suggested by the Hersey and Blanchard approach, Vecchio (1987)[8] conducted a study of more than 300 high school teachers and their principals. He found that newly hired teachers were more satisfied and performed better under principals who had highly structured leadership styles, but the performance of more experienced and mature teachers was unrelated to the style their principals exhibited. In essence, the Vecchio findings suggest that in terms of situational leadership, it is appropriate to match a highly structured S1 style of leadership with immature subordinates, but it is not clear whether it is appropriate to match S2, S3, or S4, respectively, with more mature subordinates. In a replication study using University employees, Fernandez and Vecchio (1997)[7] found similar results. Taken together, these studies fail to support the basic recommendations suggested by the situational leadership model.
The Secret to Engaging People Remotely - Daniel Stillman
Comments
For example (and of course, it's an extreme example), if there's a fire the environment requires a very directional approach. "You go here, you call 911, etc." Other situations require a collaborative approach. Other situations require a 'please let me know the best solution because you're the expert' approach.
To take one part of the leadership model and apply a filter of 'this is the only part' is far too simplistic. Academics often use this kind of argument.