It is where the leader continuously adapts their style of leading to the changing environment in which they work. If a specific style works in one situation with an individual, that doesn’t mean that style is suitable for all people or situations.

Situational leadership

<ul><li>Directing works for workers who need specific guidance to complete a task. “Here is what I’d like you to do, step by step. I need it done by this time.”</li><li>Coaching is for employees who need more guidance to complete the task. “Here’s what I’d like you to do. What do you think?”</li><li>Supporting is for employees can complete a task but lack the confidence to do it independently. “Here’s the task. How do you think it should be done?</li><li>Delegating is for employees who can work independently. “Here’s an assignment. If I can help, just ask, otherwise you’re on your own.”</li></ul>

The four leadership styles

We tend to be excellent planners but inferior doers when we lead ourselves. For example, consider the recent plan you devised but never executed. A great leader won't give their employees a great plan but then walk away and hope for the best. Instead, he would check in, look for obstacles to remove, and give feedback. We know all of this, but we don't manage execution when it comes to our own lives. So when we consider our goals, we need to step into execution mode and out of planning mode, just as a good hands-on leader would do.

Leading yourself

We often don't reflect properly on many of our past experiences or failures because the planner is convinced that we will do it differently this time. Yet if we don't understand why we failed, we likely will repeat it.

Learning from past mistakes

The author Marshall Goldsmith has a gift for taking classic theories and adding to them, or slightly modifying them, to construct something new and interesting.A good example of this is what he does with Situational Leadership in the&nbsp;book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0804141231/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=noisefreeinve-20&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;creativeASIN=0804141231&amp;linkId=285bc7020e039855308dad757955f105" dir="ltr">Triggers: Creating Behavior That Lasts – Becoming the Person You Want to Be</a>.He takes the original ideas postulated by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard in their <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0446513423/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=farnamstreet-20&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;creativeASIN=0446513423&amp;linkId=41bbbf66d8814e1ca3e84e371aa0f448" dir="ltr">theory of&nbsp;Situational Leadership</a> and adds an interesting spin, allowing us to use some of the insights more personally.***Situational leadership is the idea that one needs to constantly adapt their leadership style to the ever changing environment in which they operate.If a specific style works in one situation with one particular individual, that doesn’t mean we should adopt that style for <a href="https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2015/07/how-situations-influence-decisions/" dir="ltr">all people and situations</a>. However, in part because success is reinforced, that is generally what we do.<BLOCKQUOTE>Hersey and Blanchard’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_leadership_theory" dir="ltr">premise</a> is that leaders need to adapt their style to fit the performance readiness of their followers. Readiness not only varies by person, it also varies by task. Followers have different levels of motivation and ability for different tasks.</BLOCKQUOTE>Leaders need to acknowledge that situations change along with the readiness of their staff. To be most effective, different people require different types of leadership.Hersey and Blanchard outlined four distinct styles:<OL><LI><BLOCKQUOTE>Directing is for employees requiring a lot of specific guidance to complete the task. The leader might say, ‘Chris, here’s what I’d like you to do, step by step. And here’s when I need it done.’ It’s primarily a one-way conversation, with little input from the employee.</BLOCKQUOTE></LI><LI><BLOCKQUOTE>Coaching is for employees who need more than average guidance to complete the task, but with above-average amounts of two-way dialogue. Coaching is for people who both want and need to learn. The leader might say, ‘Chris, here’s what I’d like you to do,’ and then ask for input: ‘What do you think, Chris?’</BLOCKQUOTE></LI><LI><BLOCKQUOTE>Supporting is for employees with the skills to complete the task but who may lack the confidence to do it on their own. This style features below-average amounts of direction. The leader might say, ‘Chris, here’s the task, How do you think is should be done? Let’s talk about it. How can I help you on this one?’</BLOCKQUOTE></LI><LI><BLOCKQUOTE>Delegating is for employees who score high on motivation, ability, and confidence. They know what to do, how to do it, and can do it on their own. The leader might say, ‘Chris, here’s the assignment. You have a great track record. If I can help, just ask. If not, you’re on your own.’</BLOCKQUOTE></LI></OL>The four styles are quite different. The idea is to try and measure the need of your employee and choose the style that best fits them at that particular moment in time. The measuring process needs to happen continually for you to be most effective. The&nbsp;style which best&nbsp;helps Chris in situation X might not be the the one that will help him in&nbsp;situation Y.Now for the twist.<BLOCKQUOTE>Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership is a perfect analogue to a hidden dynamic that exists within us when we attempt to change our behavior. It’s the same dynamic whether you call it leader and follower, planner and doer, or manager and employee. The terms are interchangeable as far as I’m concerned.As we go through life making plans to be a better friend, partner, worker, athlete, parent, son, or daughter, inside each of us are two separate personas. There’s the leader/planner/manager who plans to change his or her ways. And there’s the follower/doer/employee who must execute the plan.</BLOCKQUOTE>Goldsmith argues that whether you are trying to lead other people or lead yourself, the obstacles are very much the same. You still have to deal with all the variables in the environment: temptations pushing you away from your objective, motivation issues, and self-discipline issues. One result is that we&nbsp;tend to be superior planners but inferior doers. <a href="https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2016/11/green-lumber-fallacy/" dir="ltr">We talk a good game.</a>If you take a moment to think of a recent plan that you <a href="https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2016/09/what-are-you-doing-about-it/" dir="ltr">devised but never executed</a>, you’ll realize that Goldsmith is&nbsp;onto something here. Would a successful leader come up with a beautiful plan, throw it out to their employees, and then walk away and hope for the best? No.To improve the odds of success, a leader would check in. They would look for obstacles to remove. They would want feedback on progression. They would be an active part of implementing the plan. We know this, yet&nbsp;we don’t do it&nbsp;in our&nbsp;own&nbsp;work and lives. We don’t manage execution.<BLOCKQUOTE>What if the planner in each of us, like an effective leader with his or her subordinates, could size up the situation at any point during the day and adopt the appropriate management style for the doer in us? It’s a simple two-step: measure the need, choose the style.</BLOCKQUOTE>It gives you such a new perspective to think of your goals in this way. It allows you to step back from the situation and clearly see where you are getting off course. Just step into execution mode and out of planning mode, as any good hands-on leader would do.We don’t&nbsp;adequately weigh&nbsp;<a href="https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2015/12/biases-and-blunders/" dir="ltr">many of your past experiences/failures</a>. This may be a willful denial of why you have failed at a task in the past or it could simply be that you’ve never taken the time for reflection.<BLOCKQUOTE>It’s not just environmental intrusions and unpredicted events that upset our plans. It’s also our willful discounting of past experience. We make plans that are wholly contradicted by our previous actions.</BLOCKQUOTE>The planner in us is convinced this time it will be different. Yet if you don’t understand why you failed, you’re doomed to repeat folly. <a href="https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2014/09/mistakes/" dir="ltr">Learning from our mistakes</a> is key to increasing the odds to achieve our personal and professional goals.<a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0804141231/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=noisefreeinve-20&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;creativeASIN=0804141231&amp;linkId=285bc7020e039855308dad757955f105" dir="ltr">Goldsmith’s&nbsp;book</a> is filled with insightful ideas. His&nbsp;decades of experience in coaching leaders is evident throughout the pages; both in the way he highlights his ideas with meaningful examples and the way he explains the evolution in his own thinking. You will find yourself identifying with his client’s issues and walking through the solutions, endowing you with practical tools to help you change your own behavior, whatever your own “triggers” might be.***Read Next

We all come equipped with multiple modes of leadership, to manage ourselves and others. Being cognizant of our modes helps us lead much more effectively.

career

Career

leadershipandmanagement

Leadership & Management

The author Marshall Goldsmith has a gift for taking classic theories and adding to them, or slightly modifying them, to construct something new and interesting.

A good example of this is what he does with Situational Leadership in the book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0804141231/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=noisefreeinve-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=0804141231&linkId=285bc7020e039855308dad757955f105">Triggers: Creating Behavior That Lasts – Becoming the Person You Want to Be </a>.

He takes the original ideas postulated by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard in their <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0446513423/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=farnamstreet-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=0446513423&linkId=41bbbf66d8814e1ca3e84e371aa0f448">theory of Situational Leadership </a>and adds an interesting spin, allowing us to use some of the insights more personally.

Situational leadership is the idea that one needs to constantly adapt their leadership style to the ever changing environment in which they operate.

If a specific style works in one situation with one particular individual, that doesn’t mean we should adopt that style for <a href="https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2015/07/how-situations-influence-decisions/">all people and situations </a>. However, in part because success is reinforced, that is generally what we do.

Hersey and Blanchard’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_leadership_theory">premise </a>is that leaders need to adapt their style to fit the performance readiness of their followers. Readiness not only varies by person, it also varies by task. Followers have different levels of motivation and ability for different tasks.

Leaders need to acknowledge that situations change along with the readiness of their staff. To be most effective, different people require different types of leadership.

Hersey and Blanchard outlined four distinct styles:

<ol><li><blockquote>Directing is for employees requiring a lot of specific guidance to complete the task. The leader might say, ‘Chris, here’s what I’d like you to do, step by step. And here’s when I need it done.’ It’s primarily a one-way conversation, with little input from the employee. </blockquote> </li><li><blockquote>Coaching is for employees who need more than average guidance to complete the task, but with above-average amounts of two-way dialogue. Coaching is for people who both want and need to learn. The leader might say, ‘Chris, here’s what I’d like you to do,’ and then ask for input: ‘What do you think, Chris?’ </blockquote> </li><li><blockquote>Supporting is for employees with the skills to complete the task but who may lack the confidence to do it on their own. This style features below-average amounts of direction. The leader might say, ‘Chris, here’s the task, How do you think is should be done? Let’s talk about it. How can I help you on this one?’ </blockquote> </li><li><blockquote>Delegating is for employees who score high on motivation, ability, and confidence. They know what to do, how to do it, and can do it on their own. The leader might say, ‘Chris, here’s the assignment. You have a great track record. If I can help, just ask. If not, you’re on your own.’ </blockquote> </li> </ol>

The four styles are quite different. The idea is to try and measure the need of your employee and choose the style that best fits them at that particular moment in time. The measuring process needs to happen continually for you to be most effective. The style which best helps Chris in situation X might not be the the one that will help him in situation Y.

Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership is a perfect analogue to a hidden dynamic that exists within us when we attempt to change our behavior. It’s the same dynamic whether you call it leader and follower, planner and doer, or manager and employee. The terms are interchangeable as far as I’m concerned.

As we go through life making plans to be a better friend, partner, worker, athlete, parent, son, or daughter, inside each of us are two separate personas. There’s the leader/planner/manager who plans to change his or her ways. And there’s the follower/doer/employee who must execute the plan.

Goldsmith argues that whether you are trying to lead other people or lead yourself, the obstacles are very much the same. You still have to deal with all the variables in the environment: temptations pushing you away from your objective, motivation issues, and self-discipline issues. One result is that we tend to be superior planners but inferior doers. <a href="https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2016/11/green-lumber-fallacy/">We talk a good game. </a>

If you take a moment to think of a recent plan that you <a href="https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2016/09/what-are-you-doing-about-it/">devised but never executed </a>, you’ll realize that Goldsmith is onto something here. Would a successful leader come up with a beautiful plan, throw it out to their employees, and then walk away and hope for the best? No.

To improve the odds of success, a leader would check in. They would look for obstacles to remove. They would want feedback on progression. They would be an active part of implementing the plan. We know this, yet we don’t do it in our own  work and lives. We don’t manage execution.

What if the planner in each of us, like an effective leader with his or her subordinates, could size up the situation at any point during the day and adopt the appropriate management style for the doer in us? It’s a simple two-step: measure the need, choose the style.

It gives you such a new perspective to think of your goals in this way. It allows you to step back from the situation and clearly see where you are getting off course. Just step into execution mode and out of planning mode, as any good hands-on leader would do.

We don’t adequately weigh <a href="https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2015/12/biases-and-blunders/">many of your past experiences/failures </a>. This may be a willful denial of why you have failed at a task in the past or it could simply be that you’ve never taken the time for reflection.

It’s not just environmental intrusions and unpredicted events that upset our plans. It’s also our willful discounting of past experience. We make plans that are wholly contradicted by our previous actions.

The planner in us is convinced this time it will be different. Yet if you don’t understand why you failed, you’re doomed to repeat folly. <a href="https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2014/09/mistakes/">Learning from our mistakes </a>is key to increasing the odds to achieve our personal and professional goals.

<a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0804141231/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=noisefreeinve-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=0804141231&linkId=285bc7020e039855308dad757955f105">Goldsmith’s book </a>is filled with insightful ideas. His decades of experience in coaching leaders is evident throughout the pages; both in the way he highlights his ideas with meaningful examples and the way he explains the evolution in his own thinking. You will find yourself identifying with his client’s issues and walking through the solutions, endowing you with practical tools to help you change your own behavior, whatever your own “triggers” might be.

Leaders and Followers, Planners and Doers - Farnam Street

Situational leadership

The four leadership styles

Leading yourself

Learning from past mistakes

CURATED BY

Related collections

More like this