The success of any organization is so much dependent on the leadership quality. The relationship of the leader with the members and his leadership ability contribute to the success of any management set-up. Determining the right form of leadership to implement in any situation can be the difference between success and failure of any assignment. Technically, we have leadership models such as Hersey-Blanchard Situational leadership model, path-goal leadership model and fiedler,s contingency model.
Application of Hersey-Blanchard Situational model
Hersey-Blanchard Situational model take a rather versatile perspective in its application due to the assumption that leadership is flexible and can be adjusted to fit diverse situations. This is contrary to the idea put forward by Fiedler’s contingency model which assume leadership style is never changeable (AVery, 2011). Hersey-Blanchard Situational model can be decomposed into four categories namely (participating style, selling style, delegating style and telling style) which all fit in different situations as shown below.
Case 1
The architect in this case have the ability and skills needed to accomplish the task required. They require zero intervention from anyone and can efficiently conquer the task to satisfactory completion without external assistance. The best leadership to apply in this case is therefore delegation style. Delegation style is best applied in this scenario because it is almost impossible directing/guiding independent thinkers in their area of specialization. However, though they would want to do staff their own way, you have to monitor from a distance to ensure they stay in line with the organization objectives and requirements.
Case 2
This is an interesting case because the employees in this case have no skills or technical ability to meet the job requirement. They expect such skills and instructions from the leadership involved hence the best leadership style to implement in this case is Telling style. The information flow is unidirectional and the leader doesn’t have to keep close relationship with the team hence low-relationship style fit just fine. Moreover, to the student, they are in a learning spree better call internship and information has to be only unidirectional in terms of instruction and other guidance required to accomplish the task.
Case 3
The best to employ in this scenario is selling style better known as supporting style in other cases. The supervisor will give job directions in this scenario and possible persuade the group to buy into it. However, good relation is need in such case and supervisor don’t contribute much in area of actual task since the group has all the tools to satisfactorily accomplish the assignment. The group have the right skills and motivation/desire with clear understanding of the organization mission. Maturity level in this case is M-4 since the group is ready, very willing and have the required skills to accomplish the task. Moreover, unlike case 1, they are open minded and ready to listen.
Comparing and contrasting the three models in terms of inputs and outputs
The table below is used to compare and contrast the basic input and output of the three leadership models.
INPUT
OUTPUT
Situational model
(Meier, 2006)
Employee commitment
Competence
Delegation
Directing
Coaching
Supporting
Path-Goal model
(Pratical-management.com, 2016)
Motivation such as (Value creation, skills, job, monetary, recognition, security and low cost rewards)
Delegation
Directing
Coaching
Supporting
Work facilitation
Interaction facilitation
Group decision
Networking
Value based leadership
Fielder Contingency model
(Fiedler, 1958)
Task structure
Leader-member Relationship
Position power
Task controlling leaders
Relationship conscious leaders
Table 1: Analysis of output and inputs of different types of leadership model
Based on the output and input in table 1 above, a clear distinction between the three leadership models is clear outlined. All the theories are based on different assumptions thus affect each model line of focus. It is easy to note that situational model base the best type of leadership style in terms of situation and stresses that leaders should adapt depending on situations. Path-Goal on the other hand uses various strategies to manipulate or influence various outcomes. However, the outcomes in path and situational model are similar and thus shows shared believe. The role of the leader in situational model and path-goal model is quite similar. Fielder contingency theory on the other hand widen the perspective and point out that success doesn’t only lie on the leadership style but also his control of the situation. Thus ability to control task and relationship with the members take Centre stage in Fiedler contingency theory.
Which of the three models do you think is most useful?
Based on the analysis in question 1"2, and general overview of the past studies regarding the three leadership models (Hersey-Blanchard Situational model, path-goal leadership model and fiedler,s contingency model) I strongly feel that Hersey-Blanchard Situational model overshadow other leadership models. First, the model is versatile and work from the concept that no single leadership style work in all situations thus Hersey-Blanchard Situational model is more realistic and sensible. Looking at case 1, 2 "3 discussed in question 1, working environment is really diverse in terms of workers requirement and type of work environment they feel best contented to work in. Thus it is ideal for managers too to be versatile and understand the type of employees they are managing. Successful management of any organization rely so much not only on the skills of employees but also on the relationship of the management and the employees. Without employing leadership system that has clear outlined boundaries, the relationship will obviously face difficult challenges.
According to analysis done by (Hersey " Blachard, 2015) Hersey-Blanchard Situational leadership model is rather simply and much easier to understand and implement. Figure 1 below highlight how simple the system is based on how it draw out the four pillars of situational leadership model.
Fig 1: Situational leadership model (Hersey " Blachard, 2015) (Meier, 2006).
Conclusion
Modern working environment in any organization work best with adaptive leaders flexible enough to understand the working environment and adjust with it. Moreover, Hersey-Blanchard Situational model share a close link with path-goal model but almost complete reverse of Fiedler’s contingency theory. However, while Hersey-Blanchard Situational model hold special interest on Employee commitment and Competence, path-goal model is more concerned with motivational aspect in the system. Fiedler contingency theory on the other hand believed that for management to work, there must be a good leader-member relationship in an environment where goals required. In conclusion, versatility in management is the best way to adopt in modern organization set-up.
References
Fiedler, F. (1958). Fiedler's Contingency Theory. Contingency Theory, 4(1), 1-3. Retrieved
from https://www.leadership-central.com/fiedler's-contingency-theory.html
Hersey, P., " Blachard, K. (2015). Situational leadership, 3(1), 1-9. Retrieved from
https://com-peds-pulmonary.sites.medinfo.ufl.edu/files/2014/01/Hanke-Situational-Leadership.pdf
Meier, D. (2006). Situational Leadership Theory as a Foundation for a Blended Learning
Framework. Journal Of Education And Practice, 7(10), 24-28. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301824928_Situational_Leadership_Theory_as_a_Foundation_for_a_Blended_Learning_Framework
Pratical-management.com. (2016). Path - Goal Leadership. Transforming Theory Into
Practise, 1-4. Retrieved from http://practical-management.com/pdf/Leadership-Development/Path-Goal-Leadership.pdf? Format=phocapdf
