Posted: April 24th, 2025

Essentials of Leadership Communication

Prior to beginning work on this discussion forum, review the following resources:

• Chapter 5 of your textbook Leadership Essentials: Practical and Proven Approaches in Leadership and Supervision
• 15 Tips for Effective Communication in LeadershipLinks to an external site. webpage
• Leaders video

BUS621: Week 02 Leaders Transcript

Download BUS621: Week 02 Leaders Transcript

In your post,

• Create your top five essentials of leadership communication.
• Share why you feel these are important and how, as a leader, you can help others succeed through these five essentials.

Your discussion post should be a minimum of 250 words.

Guided Response: Respond to at least two of your fellow students’ or instructor posts in a substantive manner and provide information or concepts that they may not have considered. Each response should have a minimum of 100 words and be respectful of others’ opinions and beliefs that differ from your own. Support your position by using information from the week’s readings.

You are encouraged to post your required replies earlier in the week to promote more meaningful and interactive discourse in this discussion forum. Continue to monitor the discussion forum until Day 7 and respond with robust dialogue to anyone who replies to your initial post.

5 SITUATIONAL APPROACH

DESCRIPTION
One of the more widely recognized approaches to leadership is the situational approach, which was developed by Hersey and
Blanchard (1969a) based on Reddin’s (1967) 3-D management style theory. The situational approach has been refined and
revised several times since its inception (see Blanchard, 1985; Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Nelson, 1993; Blanchard, Zigarmi, &
Zigarmi, 2013; Hersey & Blanchard, 1977, 1988), and it has been used extensively in organizational leadership training and
development.

As its name implies, the situational approach focuses on leadership in situations. The premise of the theory is that different
situations demand different kinds of leadership. From this perspective, effective leadership requires that people adapt their
style to the demands of different situations.

The situational approach is illustrated in the model developed by Blanchard and his colleagues (Blanchard et al., 1993;
Blanchard et al., 2013), called SLII® (Figure 5.1). The SLII® model, which is Blanchard’s situational approach to effective
leadership, is an extension and refinement of the original model developed by Hersey and Blanchard (1969a). This chapter
focuses on the SLII® model.

Blanchard’s model stresses that leadership is composed of both a directive and a supportive dimension, and that each has to
be applied appropriately in a given situation. To determine what is needed in a particular situation, leaders must evaluate their
followers and assess how competent and committed the followers are to perform a given goal. Based on the assumption that
followers’ skills and motivation vary over time, Blanchard’s SLII® suggests that leaders should change the degree to which
they are directive or supportive to meet the changing needs of followers.

In brief, the essence of Blanchard’s SLII® approach demands that leaders match their style to the competence and
commitment of their followers. Effective leaders are those who can recognize what followers need and then adapt their style
to meet those needs.

The dynamics of this approach are clearly illustrated in the SLII® model, which comprises two major components: leadership
style and development level of followers.

Leadership Style

Leadership style consists of the behavior pattern of a person who attempts to influence others. It includes both directive
behaviors and supportive behaviors. Directive behaviors help individuals and group members accomplish goals by giving
directions, establishing goals and methods of evaluation, setting timelines, defining roles, and showing how the goals are to be
achieved. Directive behaviors clarify, often with one-way communication, what is to be done, how it is to be done, and who is
responsible for doing it. Supportive behaviors help individuals and group members feel comfortable about themselves, their
coworkers, and the situation. Supportive behaviors involve two-way communication and responses that show social and
emotional support to others. Examples of supportive behaviors include asking for input, solving problems, praising others,
sharing information about oneself, and listening. Supportive behaviors are mostly job related.

Leadership styles can be classified further into four distinct categories of directive and supportive behaviors (Figure 5.1). The
first style (S1) is a high directive–low supportive style, which is also called a directing style. In this approach, the leader
focuses communication on goal achievement, and spends a smaller amount of time using supportive behaviors. Using this
style, a leader gives instructions about what and how goals are to be achieved by the followers and then supervises them
carefully.

The second style (S2) is called a coaching approach and is a high directive–high supportive style. In this approach, the leader
focuses communication on both achieving goals and meeting followers’ socioemotional needs. The coaching style requires
that leaders involve themselves with followers by giving encouragement and soliciting follower input. However, coaching is an
extension of S1 in that it still requires that the leader make the final decision on the what and how of goal accomplishment.

The third style (S3) is a supporting approach that requires that the leader take a high supportive–low directive style. In this
approach, the leader does not focus exclusively on goals but uses supportive behaviors that bring out followers’ skills around
the goal to be accomplished. The supportive style includes listening, praising others, asking for input, and giving feedback. A
leader using this style gives followers control of day-to-day decisions but remains available to facilitate problem solving. An S3
leader is quick to give recognition and social support to followers.

https://platform.virdocs.com/rscontent/epub/1789613/1895447/OEBPS/s9781071834497.i1119.xhtml?#po15:s9781071834497.i1128

https://platform.virdocs.com/rscontent/epub/1789613/1895447/OEBPS/s9781071834497.i1119.xhtml?#po15:s9781071834497.i1128

Description

Figure 5.1 SLII® Model

Source: From Leadership and the One Minute Manager: Increasing Effectiveness Through Situational Leadership® II, by K.

Blanchard, P. Zigarmi, and D. Zigarmi, 2013, New York, NY: William Morrow. Used with permission. This model cannot be used

without the expressed, written consent of The Ken Blanchard Companies. To learn more, visit www.kenblanchard.com

Last, the fourth style (S4) is called the low supportive–low directive style, or a delegating approach. In this approach, the
leader offers less goal input and social support, facilitating followers’ confidence and motivation in reference to the goal. The
delegative leader lessens involvement in planning, control of details, and goal clarification. After the group agrees on what to
do, this style lets followers take responsibility for getting the job done the way they see fit. A leader using S4 gives control to
followers and refrains from intervening with unnecessary social support.

The SLII® model (Figure 5.1) illustrates how directive and supportive leadership behaviors combine for each of the four
different leadership styles. As shown by the arrows on the bottom and left side of the model, directive behaviors are high in the
S1 and S2 quadrants and low in S3 and S4, whereas supportive behaviors are high in S2 and S3 and low in S1 and S4.

Development Level

A second major part of the SLII® model concerns the development level of followers. Development level is the degree to
which followers have the competence and commitment necessary to accomplish a given goal or activity (Blanchard et al.,
2013). Stated another way, it indicates whether a person has mastered the skills to achieve a specific goal and whether a
person has developed a positive attitude regarding the goal (Blanchard et al., 1993). In earlier versions of the model, this was
referred to as the readiness or maturity of the follower (Bass, 2008; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969a, 1969b, 1977, 1996).

Followers are at a high development level if they are interested and confident in their work and know how to achieve the goal.
Followers are at a developing level if they have little skill for the goal at hand but believe that they have the motivation or
confidence to get the job done.

The levels of development are illustrated in the lower portion of the diagram in Figure 5.1. The levels describe various
combinations of commitment and competence for followers on a given goal. There are two aspects of commitment:
motivation and confidence; and two aspects of competence: transferable skills and task knowledge. Development levels are
intended to be goal specific and are not intended to be used for the purpose of labeling followers.

On a particular goal, followers can be classified into four categories: D1, D2, D3, and D4, from developing to developed.
Specifically, D1 followers are low in competence and high in commitment. They are new to a goal and do not know exactly
how to do it, but they are excited about the challenge of it. D2 followers are described as having some competence but low
commitment. They have started to learn a job, but they also have lost some of their initial confidence about the job. D3
represents followers who have moderate to high competence but may have variable commitment. They have essentially
developed the skills for the job, but they are uncertain as to whether they can accomplish the goal by themselves. Finally, D4
followers are the highest in development, having both a high degree of competence and a high degree of commitment to

http://www.kenblanchard.com/

https://platform.virdocs.com/rscontent/epub/1789613/1895447/OEBPS/s9781071834497.i1119.xhtml?#po15:s9781071834497.i1128

https://platform.virdocs.com/rscontent/epub/1789613/1895447/OEBPS/s9781071834497.i1119.xhtml?#po15:s9781071834497.i1128

getting the job done. They have the transferable skills and task knowledge to do the job and the confidence and motivation to
get it done.

HOW DOES SLII® WORK?
SLII® is constructed around the idea that followers move forward and backward along the developmental continuum, which
represents the relative competence and commitment of followers. For leaders to be effective, it is essential that they
determine where followers are on the developmental continuum and adapt their leadership styles to directly match their
followers’ development levels.

In a given situation, the first task for leaders is to determine the nature of the situation. Questions such as the following must
be addressed: What goal are followers being asked to achieve? How complex is the goal? Are the followers sufficiently skilled
to accomplish the goal? Do they have the desire to complete the job once they start it? Answers to these questions will help
leaders to identify correctly the specific development level at which their followers are functioning. For example, new followers
who are very excited but lack understanding of job requirements would be identified as D1-level followers. Conversely,
seasoned followers with proven abilities and great devotion to an organization would be identified as functioning at the D4
level.

Having identified the correct development level, the second task for leaders is to adapt their style to the prescribed leadership
style represented in the SLII® model. There is a one-to-one relationship between the development level of followers (D1, D2,
etc.) and the leader’s style (S1, S2, etc.). For example, if followers are at the first level of development, D1, the leader needs
to adopt a high directive–low supportive leadership style (S1, or directing). If followers are more advanced and at the second
development level, D2, the leader needs to adopt a high directive–high supportive leadership style (S2, or coaching). For each
level of development, there is a specific style of leadership that the leader should adopt.

An example of this would be Rene Martinez, who owns a house painting business. Rene specializes in restoration of old
homes and over 30 years has acquired extensive knowledge of the specialized abilities required including understanding old
construction, painting materials and techniques, plaster repair, carpentry, and window glazing. Rene has three employees:
Ashley, who has worked for him for seven years and whom he trained from the beginning of her career; Levi, who worked for
a commercial painter for four years before being hired by Rene two years ago; and Anton, who is just starting out.

Because of Ashley’s years of experience and training, Rene would classify her as primarily D3. She is very competent, but
still seeks Rene’s insight on some tasks. She is completely comfortable prepping surfaces for painting and directing the
others but has some reluctance to taking on jobs that involve carpentry. Depending on the work he assigns Ashley, Rene
moves between S3 (supporting) and S4 (delegating) leadership behaviors.

When it comes to painting, Levi is a developed follower needing little direction or support from Rene. But Levi has to be trained
in many other aspects of home restoration, making him a D1 or D2 in those skills. Levi is a quick learner, and Rene finds he
only needs to be shown or told how to do something once before he is able to complete it easily. In most situations, Rene
uses an S2 (coaching) leadership behavior with Levi. If the goal is more complicated and requires detailed training, Rene
moves back into the S1 (directing) behavior with Levi.

Anton is completely new to this field, developing his skills but at the D1 level. What he lacks in experience he more than
makes up for in energy. He is always willing to jump in and do whatever he’s asked to do. He is not as careful as he needs to
be, however, often neglecting the proper prepping techniques and cleanup about which Rene is a stickler. Rene finds that not
only he, but also Ashley, uses an S1 (directing) behavior with Anton. Because Levi is also fairly new, he finds it difficult to be
directive with Anton, but likes to give him help when he seems unsure of himself, falling into the S3 (supporting) behavior.

This example illustrates how followers can move back and forth along the development continuum, requiring leaders to be
flexible in their leadership behavior. Followers may move from one development level to another rather quickly over a short
period (e.g., a day or a week), or more slowly on goals that proceed over much longer periods of time (e.g., a month). Leaders
cannot use the same style in all contexts; rather, they need to adapt their style to followers and their unique situations. Unlike
the trait approach, which emphasizes that leaders have a fixed style, SLII® demands that leaders demonstrate a high degree
of flexibility.

With the growing cross-cultural and technical influences on our society, it appears that the need for leaders to be flexible in
their leadership style is increasingly important. Recent studies have examined the situational approach to leadership in
different cultural and workplace contexts. In a study of the situational approach and air traffic control employees, Arvidsson,
Johansson, Ek, and Akselsson (2007) assessed leaders in different contexts and found that the leader’s style should change
in different group and individual situations. In addition, they found that the most frequently used leadership style was high
supportive–low directive and the most seldom-used style was high directive–low supportive. In another study, Larsson and
Vinberg (2010), using a case study approach, found that successful leaders use a relation orientation as a base but include
along with it a structure orientation and a change orientation.

STRENGTHS
The SLII® approach to leadership has several strengths, particularly for practitioners. The first strength is that it has a history
of usefulness in the marketplace. SLII® is well known and frequently used for training leaders within organizations. Hersey
and Blanchard (1993) reported that it has been a factor in training programs of more than 400 of the Fortune 500 companies. It
is perceived by corporations as offering a useful model for training people to become effective leaders.

A second strength of the approach is its practicality. SLII® is easy to understand, intuitively sensible, and easily applied in a
variety of settings. Whereas some leadership approaches provide complex and sophisticated ways to assess your own

leadership behavior (e.g., the decision-making approach in Vroom & Yetton, 1973), SLII® provides a straightforward approach
that is easily used. Because it is described at a level that is easily grasped, the ideas behind the approach are quickly
acquired. Managers can relate to the description of followers as combinations of competence and commitment. In addition,
the principles suggested by this approach are easy to apply across a variety of settings, including work, school, and family.

Closely akin to the strength of practicality is a third strength: It has prescriptive value. Whereas many theories of leadership
are descriptive in nature, the SLII® approach is prescriptive. It tells you what you should and should not do in various
contexts. For example, if your followers are very low in competence, the approach prescribes a directing style for you as the
leader. On the other hand, if your followers appear to be competent but lack confidence, SLII® suggests that you lead with a
supporting style. These prescriptions provide leaders with a valuable set of guidelines that can facilitate and enhance
leadership. For example, in a recent study, Meirovich and Gu (2015) reported that the closer a leader’s style is to the
prescribed style, the better the performance and satisfaction of the employees. A computer simulation found that when
leaders adapted their style to follower readiness over time, the followers’ performance improved (Bosse, Duell, Memon, Treur,
& van der Wal, 2017).

A fourth strength of the situational approach to leadership is that it emphasizes leader flexibility (Graeff, 1983; Yukl, 1989). This
approach was one of the first contingency theories of leadership, which stated that leader effectiveness depends on situational
factors. The approach stresses that leaders need to find out about their followers’ needs and then adapt their leadership style
accordingly. Leaders cannot lead using a single style: They must be willing to change their style to meet the requirements of
the situation. This approach recognizes that followers act differently when working toward different goals, and that they may
act differently during different stages of achieving the same goal. Effective leaders are those who can change their own style
based on the goal requirements and the followers’ needs, even in the middle of a project. For example, Zigarmi and Roberts
(2017) reported that when followers perceive a fit between the leader’s behavior and their own needs, it is positively related to
job affect, trust, and favorable work intentions. In retrospect, the focus of the theory on followers was many years ahead since
there has been a recent emphasis on “followership” in leadership theory and research.

Finally, the SLII® reminds us to treat each follower differently based on the goal at hand and to seek opportunities to help
followers learn new skills and become more confident in their work (Fernandez & Vecchio, 1997; Yukl, 1998). Overall, this
approach underscores that followers have unique needs and deserve our help in trying to become better at doing their work.
The focus on the commitment and competence of followers allows leaders to assess follower performance and influence
them through style and behavior (Cote, 2017).

CRITICISMS
Despite its history of use in leadership training and development, SLII® has several limitations. The following criticisms point
out several weaknesses in this approach and help to provide a more balanced picture of the general utility of this approach in
studying and practicing leadership.

The first criticism of this approach is that only a few research studies have been conducted to justify the assumptions and
propositions set forth by the approach. Although many doctoral dissertations address dimensions of the situational approach
to leadership, most of these research studies have not been published. The lack of a strong body of research on this
approach raises questions about the theoretical basis for it (Fernandez & Vecchio, 1997; Graeff, 1997; Meirovich & Gu, 2015;
Vecchio & Boatwright, 2002; Vecchio, Bullis, & Brazil, 2006). Can we be sure it is a valid approach? Is it certain that this
approach does indeed improve performance? Does this approach compare favorably with other leadership approaches in its
impact on followers? It is difficult to give firm answers to these questions when the testing of this approach has not resulted in
a significant amount of published research findings.

A second criticism of SLII® concerns the ambiguous conceptualization in the model of followers’ development levels. The
authors of the model do not make clear how commitment is combined with competence to form four distinct levels of
development (Graeff, 1997; Yukl, 1989). In one of the earliest versions of the model, Hersey and Blanchard (1969b) defined
the four levels of commitment (maturity) as unwilling and unable (Level 1), willing and unable (Level 2), unwilling and able
(Level 3), and willing and able (Level 4). In a more recent version, represented by the SLII® model, development level is
described as high commitment and low competence in D1, low commitment and some competence in D2, variable
commitment and high competence in D3, and high commitment and high competence in D4.

The authors of SLII® do not explain the theoretical basis for these changes in the composition of each of the development
levels. Furthermore, they do not explain how competence and commitment are weighted across different development levels.
As pointed out by Blanchard et al. (1993), there is a need for further research to establish how competence and commitment
are conceptualized for each development level.

Closely related to the general criticism of ambiguity about followers’ development levels is a concern with how commitment
itself is conceptualized in the model. For example, Graeff (1997) suggested the conceptualization is very unclear. Blanchard
et al. (2013) stated that followers’ commitment is composed of confidence and motivation, but it is not clear how confidence
and motivation combine to define commitment. According to the SLII® model, commitment starts out high in D1, moves down
in D2, becomes variable in D3, and rises again in D4. Intuitively, it appears more logical to describe follower commitment as
existing on a continuum moving from low to moderate to high. Rather than viewing commitment and competence as having
varying levels, the range of scores is cut, and followers are classified into categories. For example, a follower may be very
close to the cutoff for having high commitment but is placed into the low category.

The argument provided by Blanchard et al. (1993) for how commitment varies in the SLII® model is that followers usually start
out motivated and eager to learn, and then they may become discouraged and disillusioned. Next, they may begin to lack
confidence or motivation, or both, and, last, they become highly confident and motivated. But why is this so? Why do followers
who learn a task become less committed? Why is there a decrease in commitment at D2 and D3? Without more research to
substantiate the way follower commitment is conceptualized, this dimension of SLII® remains unclear.

Some clarification of the ambiguity surrounding development levels is suggested by Thompson and Glasø (2015), who found
that the predictions of the earlier model of the situational approach to leadership were more likely to hold true when the leaders’
ratings and followers’ ratings of competence and commitment are congruent. They stressed the importance of finding mutual
agreement between leaders and followers on these ratings. These findings were replicated and extended by the authors
(Thompson & Glasø, 2018). Again, the research showed that the principles underlying the situational approach are supported
when leaders’ ratings and followers’ ratings of competence and commitment are in agreement. In comparing the two
perspectives, there is no support for using followers’ self-ratings of competence and commitment to predict performance.
However, the leader’s ratings appear to be more useful for determining the right type of direction to give followers.

A fourth criticism of the SLII® model has to do with how the model matches leader style with follower development levels—the
prescriptions of the model. To determine the validity of the prescriptions suggested by the Hersey and Blanchard approach,
Vecchio (1987) 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 that the
performance of more experienced and mature teachers was unrelated to the style their principals exhibited.

Vecchio and his colleagues replicated this study twice: first in 1997, using university employees (Fernandez & Vecchio, 1997),
and most recently in 2006, studying more than 800 U.S. Military Academy cadets (Vecchio et al., 2006). Both studies failed to
find strong evidence to support the basic prescriptions suggested in the situational approach.

To further test the assumptions and validity of the situational approach, Thompson and Vecchio (2009) analyzed the original
and revised versions of the model using data collected from 357 banking employees and 80 supervisors. They found no clear
empirical support for the model in any of its versions. At best, they found some evidence to support leaders being more
directive with newer employees and being more supportive and less directive as employees become more senior. Also,
Meirovich and Gu (2015) found evidence that followers with more experience indicated a more positive response to autonomy
and participation, a finding supporting the importance of leaders being less directive with experienced employees. There is
also research evidence that shows that the directive style is being used less frequently, regardless of the readiness levels of
followers (Zigarmi & Roberts, 2017). This may be due to a shift in organizational cultures toward empowering followers rather
than “micromanaging” them.

A fifth criticism of SLII® is that it fails to account for how certain demographic characteristics (e.g., education, experience,
age, and gender) influence the leader–follower prescriptions of the model. For example, a study conducted by Vecchio and
Boatwright (2002) showed that level of education and job experience were inversely related to directive leadership and were
not related to supportive leadership. In other words, followers with more education and more work experience desired less
structure. An interesting finding is that age was positively related to desire for structure: The older followers desired more
structure than the younger followers did. In addition, their findings indicated that female and male followers had different
preferences for styles of leadership. Female followers expressed a stronger preference for supportive leadership, whereas
male followers had a stronger desire for directive leadership. These findings indicate that demographic characteristics may
affect followers’ preferences for a particular leadership style. However, these characteristics are not considered in the
situational approach.

SLII® can also be criticized from a practical standpoint because it does not fully address the issue of one-to-one versus group
leadership in an organizational setting. The developers of the theory did not specify whether the theory operates at the
individual, dyadic, or group level of analysis, and the sparse empirical research does not consider levels (Yammarino, Dionne,
Chun, & Dansereau, 2005). For example, should leaders with a group of 20 followers lead by matching their style to the
overall development level of the group or to the development level of individual members of the group? Carew, Parisi-Carew,
and Blanchard (1990) suggested that groups go through development stages that are similar to individuals’, and that therefore
leaders should try to match their styles to the group’s development level. However, if the leaders match their style to the mean
development level of a group, how will this affect the individuals whose development levels are quite different from those of
their colleagues? Existing research on SLII® does not answer this question. More research is needed to explain how leaders
can adapt their styles simultaneously to the development levels of individual group members and to the group as a whole.

A final criticism of SLII® can be directed at the leadership questionnaires that accompany the model. Questionnaires on SLII®
typically ask respondents to analyze various work situations and select the best leadership style for each situation. The
questionnaires are constructed to force respondents to describe leadership style in terms of four specific parameters (i.e.,
directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating) rather than in terms of other leadership behaviors. Because the best answers
available to respondents have been predetermined, the questionnaires are biased in favor of the situational approach (Graeff,
1983; Yukl, 1989).

APPLICATION
SLII® is frequently used by trainers and practitioners because it is an approach that is easy to conceptualize and apply. The
straightforward nature of SLII® makes it practical for managers to use.

The principles of this approach can be applied at many different levels in an organization—from how a CEO of a large
corporation works with a board of directors to how a crew chief in an assembly plant leads a small group of production
workers. Middle managers can use SLII® to direct staff meetings, and heads of departments can use this approach in
planning structural changes within an organization. There is no shortage of opportunities for using SLII®.

SLII® applies during the initial stages of a project, when idea formation is important, and during the various subsequent
phases of a project, when implementation issues are important. The fluid nature of SLII® makes it ideal for applying to
followers as they move forward or go backward (regress) on various projects. Because SLII® stresses adapting to followers,
it is ideal for use with followers whose commitment and competence change over the course of a project.

Given the breadth of Blanchard’s SLII® model, it is applicable in almost any type of organization, at any level, for nearly all
types of goals. It is an encompassing model with a wide range of applications.

CASE STUDIES
To see how SLII® can be applied in different organizational settings, you may want to assess Cases 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3. The
first case looks at a leader coaching runners at differing levels who hope to complete the New York City Marathon. The
second case is concerned with problems of training new DJs at a campus radio station. The third explores two Chinese
philosophies of leadership—Confucianism and Daoism—and how these philosophies contrast and affect leadership in the
workplace. For each of these cases, ask yourself what you would do if you found yourself in a similar situation. At the end of
each case, there are questions that will help you analyze the context from the perspective of the situational approach.

Case 5.1

Marathon Runners at Different Levels

David Abruzzo is the newly elected president of the Metrocity Striders Track Club (MSTC). One of his duties is to
serve as the coach for runners who hope to complete the New York City Marathon. Because Abruzzo has run many
marathons and ultramarathons successfully, he feels quite comfortable assuming the role and responsibilities of
coach for the marathon runners.

The training period for runners intending to run New York is 16 weeks. During the first couple of weeks of training,
Abruzzo was pleased with the progress of the runners and had little difficulty in his role as coach. However, when the
runners reached Week 8, the halfway mark, some things began to occur that raised questions in Abruzzo’s mind
regarding how best to help his runners. The issues of concern seemed quite different from those that Abruzzo had
expected to hear from runners in a marathon training program. All in all, the runners and their concerns could be
divided into three different groups.

One group of runners, most of whom had never run a marathon, peppered the coach with all kinds of questions. They
were very concerned about how to do the marathon and whether they had the ability to complete such a challenging
event successfully. They asked questions about how far to run in training, what to eat, how much to drink, and what
kind of shoes to wear. One runner wanted to know what to eat the night before the marathon, and another wanted to
know whether it was likely that he would pass out when he crossed the finish line. For Abruzzo the questions were
never-ending and rather basic. He wanted to treat the runners like informed adults, but they seemed to be acting
immature, and rather childish.

The second group of runners, all of whom had finished the New York City Marathon in the previous year, seemed
most concerned about the effects of training on their running. For example, they wanted to know precisely how their
per-week running mileage related to their possible marathon finishing time. Would running long practice runs help them
through the wall at the 20-mile mark? Would taking a rest day during training actually help their overall conditioning?
Basically, the runners in this group seemed to want assurances from Abruzzo that they were training in the right way
for New York. For Abruzzo, talking to this group was easy because he enjoyed giving them encouragement and
motivational pep talks.

A third group was made up of seasoned runners, most of whom had run several marathons and many of whom had
finished in the top 10 of their respective age divisions. Sometimes they complained of feeling flat and acted a bit
moody and down about training. Even though they had confidence in their ability to compete and finish well, they
lacked an element of excitement about running in the New York event. The occasional questions they raised usually
concerned such things as whether their overall training strategy was appropriate or whether their training would help
them in other races besides the New York City Marathon. Because of his running experience, Abruzzo liked to offer
running tips to this group. However, when he did, he felt like the runners ignored and discounted his suggestions. He
was concerned that they might not appreciate him or his coaching.

Questions

1. Based on the principles of the SLII® model (Figure 5.1), how would you describe the runners in Group 1? What
kind of leadership do they want from Abruzzo, and what kind of leadership does he seem prepared to give
them?

2. How would you describe the fit between the runners in Group 2 and Abruzzo’s coaching style? Discuss.

3. The experienced runners in Group 3 appear to be a challenge to Abruzzo. Using SLII®, explain why he appears
ineffective with this group.

4. If you were helping Abruzzo with his coaching, how would you describe his strengths and weaknesses? What
suggestions would you make to him about how to improve?

Case 5.2

Getting the Message Across

https://platform.virdocs.com/rscontent/epub/1789613/1895447/OEBPS/s9781071834497.i1119.xhtml?#po15:s9781071834497.i1142

https://platform.virdocs.com/rscontent/epub/1789613/1895447/OEBPS/s9781071834497.i1119.xhtml?#po15:s9781071834497.i1146

https://platform.virdocs.com/rscontent/epub/1789613/1895447/OEBPS/s9781071834497.i1119.xhtml?#po15:s9781071834497.i1149

https://platform.virdocs.com/rscontent/epub/1789613/1895447/OEBPS/s9781071834497.i1119.xhtml?#po15:s9781071834497.i1128

Ann Caldera is the program director of a college campus radio station (WCBA) that is supported by the university.
WCBA has a long history and is viewed favorably by students, faculty, the board of trustees, and the people in the
community.

Caldera does not have a problem getting students to work at WCBA. In fact, it is one of the most sought-after
university-related activities. The few students who are accepted to work at WCBA are always highly motivated
because they value the opportunity to get hands-on media experience. In addition, those who are accepted tend to be
highly confident (sometimes naïvely so) of their own radio ability. Despite their eagerness, most of them lack a full
understanding of the legal responsibilities of being on the air.

One of the biggest problems that confronts Caldera every semester is how to train new students to follow the rules
and procedures of WCBA when they are doing on-air announcing for news, sports, music, and other radio programs. It
seems as if every semester numerous incidents arise in which an announcer violates in no small way the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) rules for appropriate airtime communication. For example, rumor has it that one
year a first-year student disc jockey on the evening shift announced that a new band was playing in town, the cover
was $10, and everyone should go to hear the group. Making an announcement such as this is a clear violation of FCC
rules: It is illegal.

Caldera is frustrated with her predicament but cannot seem to figure out why it keeps occurring. She puts a lot of time
and effort into helping new DJs, but they just do not seem to get the message that working at WCBA is a serious job
and that obeying the FCC rules is an absolute necessity. Caldera wonders whether her leadership style is missing the
mark.

Each semester, Caldera gives the students a very complete handout on policies and procedures. In addition, she tries
to get to know each of the new students personally. Because she wants everybody to be happy at WCBA, she tries
very hard to build a relational climate at the station. Repeatedly, students say that Caldera is the nicest adviser on
campus. Because she recognizes the quality of her students, Caldera mostly lets them do what they want at the
station.

Questions

1. What’s the problem at WCBA?

2. Using SLII® as a basis, what would you advise Caldera to do differently at the station?
3. Based on SLII®, what creative schemes could Caldera use to reduce FCC infractions at WCBA?

Case 5.3

Philosophies of Chinese Leadership

Before reading this case study, access and listen to the 2019 TED Talk by management consultant Fang Ruan here:

www.ted.com/talks/fang_ruan_management_lessons_from_chinese_business_and_philosophy#t-153758. Transcripts
are also available on the site.

In China, the business leadership landscape has long been guided by the ancient philosophical teachings of
Confucius, which encourage authority, seniority, and obedience (Confucianism). For a nation, this is a time-tested
formula to ensure order and harmony. For a company, this ensures precise execution on a large scale. But as
business environments constantly change with internet and technology disrupting traditional industries and millennials
becoming a major workforce, new ways of management are emerging within China.

Management consultant Fang Ruan says she sees many Chinese entrepreneurs leaning toward a more dynamic
leadership style based on the philosophy of another revered, ancient Chinese thought leader, Lao-tzu (Laozi), known
as Daoism. To understand these differences between the two, it’s important to understand the underlying tenets of
each of the philosophies.

Confucianism

Although sometimes referred to as a religion, Confucianism is more a habit of thought, a life philosophy. China’s
dominant social and political value system for over 1,000 years, Confucianism is based on the concepts of “respect
for family, hard work and education” and “emphasizes social order and an active life” (Min-Huei, 2016).

Confucianism is built on the tenet that proper human relationships are essential to a well-functioning society. Four traits
of Confucian ideology that have remained constant are

socialization within the family unit in such a way as to promote sobriety, education, the acquisition of skills, and
seriousness about tasks, job, family, and obligations;

a tendency to help the group (however it might be identied);

a sense of hierarchy and of its naturalness and rightness; and

a sense of complementarity in relationships, which, combined with the sense of hierarchy, enhances
perceptions of fairness and equity in institutions (Huang, 2000).

The Confucian hierarchical order is considered to lend stability and order; by understanding, honoring, and maintaining
their place in society, followers can achieve harmony.

In the workplace, the hierarchical structure of Confucianism plays a pertinent role in the functioning of organizations.
The characteristics of loyalty, obedience, respect, and service are expected of subordinates, and wisdom, moral
purity, and leadership are expected of superiors (Huang, 2000). The patriarchal nature of Chinese culture is in direct
relationship to Confucius’s teachings, which advocate an authoritative and patriarchal ruler. This authoritarian culture
has developed a superior–subordinate bureaucracy where the paramount leader is the center of power (Huang, 2000).
This perspective lends itself to elitist and patriarchal organizations where everyone knows their place and does not
stray from the established boundaries.

Chinese communication styles are indirect, and that applies to those in leadership positions, as well. Wang (2018)
notes that “the wise Confucian is expected to listen in silence.” It’s not that Chinese employees are unwilling to share
information; rather, they must be prompted if one wants details. This becomes particularly complicated when the
exchange involves criticism or a discussion of problems. To prevent a loss of face, or mianzi (MY-ann-ZEE), which is
showing respect to others according to their status and reputation in society, such discussions are often held in private
(Wang, 2018).

Yi-Hui Huang (2000) summarizes classic Confucianism dogma this way: “All will be right with the world if everyone
conscientiously performs one’s assigned role” (p. 227).

Daoism

Daoism (also referred to as Taoism) is the less rigid and more simplistic sibling of Confucianism and arose in the
same period, known as the Hundred Schools of Thought.

Daoism originated with Chinese philosopher Laozi (also referred to as Lao-tzu), who was born in 604 BCE in central
China. Laozi was the Keeper of Royal Archives for the Zhou dynasty until 516 BCE when he left the post to travel. He
was inspired to write down his teachings in a book, which would become known as the Dao De Jing (aka the Tao Te
Ching) or “The Way.”

Like Confucianism, harmony is the backbone of the Daoist perspective, but with a key difference: Humans must be in
harmony not only with each other but also with the natural flow of life, letting things take their natural course. Natural
ways were considered better than imposed ways by Laozi. Allowing things to evolve in accordance with natural law is
the cornerstone of Daoism. Where Confucianism focuses on creating social harmony, the goal of the Dao is to
achieve balance.

The Dao is more dynamic and fluid, recognizing the need to navigate the duality of life—the Yin and the Yang—
principles of life that are both complementing and opposing, such as dark and light, stillness and movement, sun and
moon.

The metaphor of water is often used in Daoism. Water is seen to be powerful, yet altruistic, as it serves others. It is
modest, flexible, and humble, because by its nature it seeks out the lowest place. Lee, Han, Byron, and Fan (2008)
noted that “we human beings, especially leaders, should learn from water because water always remains in the lowest
position and never competes with other things. Instead, water is very helpful and beneficial to all things.”

The rivers and seas lead the hundred streams.

Because they are skillful at staying low.

Thus, they are able to lead the hundred streams. (Laozi, Chapter 66) (Lee et al., 2008, p. 91)

Laozi viewed leaders as being servants and followers. “The more one serves, the more one leads. Leadership, first,
means follower-ship or service-ship just like water. Second, leadership means non-intrusiveness or non-interference”
(Lee et al., 2008, p. 91).

Among other tenets, individuals who follow the Dao

exert minimal influence on the lives of followers;

encourage followers to take ownership of tasks;

employ “soft tactics,” such as persuasion, empowerment, modeling, teamwork, collaboration, and service;

demonstrate creativity and flexibility;

promote harmony with nature and others;

reject the trappings of status and promote equality; and

give to and serve others (Johnson, 1999).

Simplicity of life and respect for its natural flow epitomize a Daoist’s life view.

Questions

1. Where on the SLII® model would you generally classify a leader who strictly leans toward Confucianism?
Where would you classify a follower in an environment that strictly adheres to the Confucianist philosophy?
Explain your reasoning.

2. Where on the SLII® model would you generally classify a leader who models the Daoist philosophy? Where
would you classify a follower in an environment that follows Daoist principles? Explain your reasoning.

In Fang Ruan’s TED Talk, she discusses companies that have achieved notable success as they adopted more
Daoist leadership philosophies. The following questions relate to those companies:

3. Raun discusses the situation of the founder of Ping An who, desiring to steer innovation, found it difficult to adopt
Daoism-based philosophical changes due to the size and complexity of the business.

a. From the perspective of the SLII® model, how does an organization’s size and complexity relate to the
effectiveness of each of the leadership styles represented in Figure 5.1?

b. What about the development levels of the followers? How does size and complexity affect the needed
directive behavior of leaders?

4. Which of these two philosophies most reflects your own? How does your own philosophical perspective affect
your expression of the four styles of leadership?

— Barbara Russell, MBA, BSCS, BBA, Chemeketa Community College

Leadership Instrument

Although over the years different versions of instruments have been developed to measure SLII®, nearly all of them are
constructed similarly. As a rule, the SLII® provides 20 work-related situations and asks respondents to select their preferred
style for each situation from four alternatives. The situations and styles are written to directly represent the leadership styles
of the four quadrants in the model. Questionnaire responses are scored to give respondents information about their primary
and secondary leadership styles, their flexibility, and their leadership effectiveness.

The brief questionnaire provided in this section illustrates how the SLII® measures leadership style in the situational approach.
For each situation on the questionnaire, you are asked to identify the development level of the followers in the situation and
then select one of the four response alternatives that indicate the style of leadership you would use in that situation.

Expanded versions of the brief questionnaire give respondents an overall profile of their leadership style. By analyzing the
alternatives a respondent makes on the questionnaire, one can determine that respondent’s primary and secondary
leadership styles. By analyzing the range of choices a respondent makes, one can determine that respondent’s leadership
flexibility. Leadership effectiveness and diagnostic ability can be measured by analyzing the number of times the respondent
made accurate assessments of a preferred leadership style.

In addition to these self-scored questionnaires, SLII® uses similar forms to tap the concurrent perceptions that bosses,
associates, and followers have of a person’s leadership style. These questionnaires give respondents a wide range of
feedback on their leadership styles and the opportunity to compare their own views of leadership with the way others view
them in a leadership role.

SLII® Questionnaire: Sample Items

Purpose: The purpose of this questionnaire is to explore how different styles of leadership in the situational approach
are used depending on the development level of the followers.

Instructions: Look at the following four leadership situations, from Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Zigarmi (1992), and indicate
which SLII® leadership style is needed in each situation provided in the answer options beneath each statement.

Situation

A B C D

1. Because of budget restrictions imposed on your department, it is necessary to consolidate.
You are thinking of asking a highly capable and experienced member of your department to take
charge of the consolidation. This person has worked in all areas of your department and has the
trust and respect of most of the staff. She is very willing to help with the consolidation.

A. Assign the project to her and let her determine how to accomplish it.
B. Assign the task to her, indicate to her precisely what must be done, and supervise her work

closely.
C. Assign the task to her and provide support and encouragement as needed.
D. Assign the task to her and indicate to her precisely what must be done but make sure you

incorporate her suggestions.

A B C D

https://platform.virdocs.com/rscontent/epub/1789613/1895447/OEBPS/s9781071834497.i1119.xhtml?#po15:s9781071834497.i1128

2. You have recently been made a department head of the new regional office. In getting to
know your departmental staff, you have noticed that one of your inexperienced employees is not
following through on assigned tasks. She is enthusiastic about her new job and wants to get
ahead in the organization.

A. Discuss the lack of follow-through with her and explain the alternative ways this problem
can be solved.

B. Specify what she must do to complete the tasks but incorporate any suggestions she may
have.

C. Define the steps necessary for her to complete the assigned tasks and monitor her
performance frequently.

D. Let her know about the lack of follow-through and give her more time to improve her
performance.

A B C D

3. Because of a new and very important unit project, for the past three months you have made
sure that your staff members understood their responsibilities and expected level of performance,
and you have supervised them closely. Due to some recent project setbacks, your staff
members have become somewhat discouraged. Their morale has dropped, and so has their
performance.

A. Continue to direct and closely supervise their performance.
B. Give the group members more time to overcome the setbacks but occasionally check their

progress.
C. Continue to define group activities but involve the group members more in decision making

and incorporate their ideas.
D. Participate in the group members’ problem-solving activities and encourage and support

their efforts to overcome the project setbacks.

A B C D

4. As a director of the sales department, you have asked a member of your staff to take charge
of a new sales campaign. You have worked with this person on other sales campaigns, and you
know he has the job knowledge and experience to be successful at new assignments. However,
he seems a little unsure about his ability to do the job.

A. Assign the new sales campaign to him and let him function on his own.
B. Set goals and objectives for this new assignment but consider his suggestions and involve

him in decision making.
C. Listen to his concerns but assure him he can do the job and support his efforts.
D. Tell him exactly what the new campaign involves and what you expect of him, and

supervise his performance closely.

A B C D

Source: Adapted from Game Plan for Leadership and the One Minute Manager (Figure 5.20, Learning Activity, p. 5), by K. Blanchard, P. Zigarmi, and D.

Zigarmi, 1992, Escondido, CA: Blanchard Training and Development (phone 760-489-5005). Used with permission.

Scoring Interpretation

A short discussion of the correct answers to the brief questionnaire will help to explain the nature of SLII®
questionnaires.

Situation 1 in the brief questionnaire describes a common problem faced by organizations during downsizing: the need
to consolidate. In this particular situation, the leader has identified a person who appears to be highly competent,
experienced, and motivated to direct the downsizing project. According to the SLII® model, this person is at
Development Level 4, which calls for a delegative approach. Of the four response alternatives, it is the (A) response,
“Assign the project to her and let her determine how to accomplish it,” that best represents delegating (S4): low
supportive–low directive leadership.

Situation 2 describes a problem familiar to leaders at all levels in nearly all organizations: lack of follow-through by an
enthusiastic follower. In the given example, the follower falls in Development Level 1 because she lacks the
experience to do the job even though she is highly motivated to succeed. The SLII® approach prescribes directing
(S1) leadership for this type of follower. She needs to be told when and how to do her specific job. After she is given
directions, her performance should be supervised closely. The correct response is (C), “Define the steps necessary to
complete the assigned tasks and monitor her performance frequently.”

Situation 3 describes a very different circumstance. In this situation, the followers seem to have developed some
experience and an understanding of what is required of them, but they have lost some of their motivation to complete
the goal. Their performance and commitment have stalled because of recent setbacks, even though the leader has
been directing them closely. According to SLII®, the correct response for the leader is to shift to a more supportive
coaching style (S2) of leadership. The action response that reflects coaching is (C), “Continue to define group
activities but involve the group members more in decision making and incorporate their ideas.”

Situation 4 describes some of the concerns that arise for a director attempting to identify the correct person to head a
new sales campaign. The person identified for the position obviously has the skills necessary to do a good job with the
new sales campaign, but he appears apprehensive about his own abilities. In this context, SLII® suggests that the

director should use a supportive style (S3), which is consistent with leading followers who are competent but lacking a
certain degree of confidence. A supportive style is represented by action response (C), “Listen to his concerns but
assure him he can do the job and support his efforts.”

Summary

SLII® is a prescriptive approach to leadership that suggests how leaders can become effective in many different types
of organizational settings involving a wide variety of organizational goals. This approach provides a model that
suggests to leaders how they should behave based on the demands of a particular situation.

The SLII® model classifies leadership into four styles: S1 is high directive–low supportive, S2 is high directive–high
supportive, S3 is low directive–high supportive, and S4 is low directive–low supportive. The model describes how
each of the four leadership styles applies to followers who work at different levels of development, from D1 (low in
competence and high in commitment), to D2 (low to some competence and low in commitment), to D3 (moderately
competent but lacking commitment), to D4 (a great deal of competence and a high degree of commitment).

Effective leadership occurs when the leader can accurately diagnose the development level of followers in a goal
situation and then exhibit the prescribed leadership style that matches that situation.

Leadership is measured in this approach with questionnaires that ask respondents to assess a series of work-related
situations. The questionnaires provide information about the leader’s diagnostic ability, flexibility, and effectiveness.
They are useful in helping leaders to learn about how they can change their leadership style to become more effective
across different situations.

There are four major strengths to the situational approach. First, it is recognized by many as a standard for training
leaders. Second, it is a practical approach, which is easily understood and easily applied. Third, this approach sets
forth a clear set of prescriptions for how leaders should act if they want to enhance their leadership effectiveness.
Fourth, the situational approach recognizes and stresses that there is not one best style of leadership; instead, leaders
need to be flexible and adapt their style to the requirements of the situation.

Criticisms of the situational approach suggest that it also has limitations. Unlike many other leadership theories, this
approach does not have a strong body of research findings to justify and support the theoretical underpinnings on
which it stands. As a result, there is ambiguity regarding how the approach conceptualizes certain aspects of
leadership. It is not clear in explaining how followers move from developing levels to developed levels, nor is it clear on
how commitment changes over time for followers. Without the basic research findings, the validity of the basic
prescriptions for matching leaders’ styles to followers’ development levels must be questioned. In addition, the model
does not address how demographic characteristics affect followers’ preferences for leadership. Finally, the model
does not provide guidelines for how leaders should adapt their style to groups as opposed to one-to-one contexts.

Descriptions of Images and Figures
Back to Figure

The matrix of leadership styles shows directive behavior along the horizontal axis and supportive behavior along the vertical
axis, both ranging from low to high. The different leadership styles are as follows.

S1 on the bottom-right side of the matrix: High directive and low supportive behavior.

S2 on the top-right side of the matrix: High directive and high supportive behavior.

S3 on the top-left side of the matrix: High supportive and low directive behavior.

S4 on the bottom-left side of the matrix: Low supportive and low directive behavior.

A bell-shaped curve is labeled delegating in the S4 block, supporting in the S3 block, coaching in the S2 block, and directing in
the S1 block.

The four development levels under the matrix, from developing on the right to developed on the left are as follows.

D1: Low competence, high commitment.

D2: Low to some competence, low commitment.

D3: Moderate to high competence, variable commitment.

D4: High competence and high commitment.