Situational Leadership in Action

Jasminh Nguyen
Oct 12, 2024
4 min read

In my last blog post, I focused on behavior-based leadership, where leaders are defined by what they do. But what if great leadership is about knowing when to do it? Today I will dive deeper into contingency theories of leadership, which emphasize how leadership styles can be adapted to specific situations.

Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Leadership Theory, that was developed in 1969, suggests that not one single leadership style is effective in all situations. Rather, effective leaders should tailor themselves to the needs and the demands of the situation, all while considering the readiness levels of those they lead.

The theory outlines four main leadership styles based on follower competence and commitment levels:

1. Telling (Directing): High task, low relationship. Leaders give specific instructions and closely supervise task completion. This style is best for followers who are low in competence but high in commitment.

2. Selling (Coaching): High task, high relationship. Leaders provide direction but also offer support and encouragement to build follower confidence. This style is suitable for followers who have some competence but lack commitment.

3. Participating (Supporting): Low task, high relationship. Leaders share decision-making with followers and provide support. This style works well for followers who are competent but lack confidence or motivation.

4. Delegating (Observing): Low task, low relationship. Leaders provide little direction and support, allowing followers to take responsibility. This style is ideal for followers who are both competent and committed.

It is important to note that: Task behaviors = directive and Relation behaviors = supportive

Example in the Workplace

My anniversary at Rancho Bernardo Inn is coming up this late October, and as I reflect on my first year working at the property, I can see how situational leadership has played a role in my development from a follower perspective.

When I started as a front desk agent, the onboarding, orientation, and training process felt long. Onboarding took a week, orientation took another week, and my training lasted 2 to 3 weeks. It wasn’t until a month and a half after my official start date that I could actually get moving. During training, I can recount days where I shadowed other experienced front desk agents and managers, and I dreaded it because I was eager to just dive in. I really wanted to be at the desk, interacting with guests, and getting to do my job.

I know myself, and that I learn best by actively participating, and Walter, my manager, understood that. He let me handle check-ins semi-independently while he supervised, stepping in to correct me when necessary. This happened in late November last year during a particularly busy weekend, right after we’d put up our holiday gingerbread house display. The lobby was packed, and with a fully booked weekend due to an upcoming conference, the pressure was high. Even though I had completed my training with the binder and all, I hadn’t yet experienced such a hectic situation.

Walter recognized that I was enthusiastic and had learned the basics, but I lacked experience managing myself in this high-stress environment and multitasking during busy check-ins. At that point, I would classify myself as a D1 follower. I was an enthusiastic beginner who was committed to the bit, but not fully competent in my job yet. Walter’s hands-on, directing (S1) leadership style was exactly what helped me. He walked me through each step of the check-in process, providing clear instructions and overseeing my work. He stood right behind me and gave me feedback after each check-in. His presence gave me confidence, knowing that if I made a mistake, he was there to correct it.

I really appreciated Walter's approach this this, especially during my first high-pressure weekend. His guidance helped me feel reassured and gain confidence.

On the other hand, there's definitely been instances where the wrong type of leadership approach has been applied in certain situations. More recently, I have noticed that one of our front desk agent, who is very good at their job, has been struggling recently due to the lack of support from management. Based on Blanchard’s Situational Leadership model, I would say that this employee's development level could be D3, someone who is highly competent but is variable committed. They know how to do their job well, which in management's eyes leads them to believing that they would fall under a D4 employee because they are confident in his ability. But due to feeling overwhelmed and unsupported, this particular employee's motivation has started to decline and is causing them to start acting out in a bad manner.

The problem lies in the leadership approach. Rather than recognizing the agent’s need for supportive leadership to complement the D3 employee, our leadership team often applies delegating because they assume that this employee is highly competent and committed in this job.

The absence of support leaves the agent feeling isolated, overwhelmed, and upset most of the time. Without someone to turn to in high-pressure situations, their morale drops, and they start to struggle with tasks they were once confident in. This mismatch in leadership style ultimately has a negative effect on the employee, resulting in them feeling burnt out and unmotivated. And not to mention that this has an effect on the entire workplace too!

Overall...

Reflecting on my experiences at Rancho Bernardo Inn, it becomes clear that effective leadership is not just about having the right traits and behaviors, it’s also about understanding when to apply those skills based on the context and the needs of team members.