Situational leadership is a management style where a manager of a firm is compelled to alter his or her management techniques to suit the improvement level of the employees and other subjects under his or her authority. In this leadership approach, it the responsibility of the leader to adjust his or her usual techniques and not the subjects to adhere to his or her most likely usual and unsuitable tactics (Cassidy, Carlene, & Robert Kreitner 33). It is situational in the sense that the leader is forced to adjust the regular management styles he uses to meet unanticipated requirements of other parties in the company based on the prevailing situation. This leadership style was studied and developed by Kenneth Blanchard, Paul Hersey and D.E Johnson in their seminar work. There is no particular best approach a manger uses to influence the behavior of the followers, rather the style he selects depends entirely on the environment and the flexibility of the individuals led.
Different organizations use different types of leadership approaches depending on several factors such the set goals and objectives, business culture and the general structure of the company. However, some organizations can use several management techniques simultaneously. Some of the common leadership styles found in a typical work place include participative or democratic leadership, whereby mangers allow the employees to take part in the decision making process but the participative manager rests with the obligation of making the ultimate conclusion. On the other hand, in an autocratic or authoritarian leadership tactic, the manager explains to the subjects what they are supposed to accomplish, without getting their views. Another type of management technique offered in organizations is laissez-Faire, which commonly applies to highly experienced workforce. The leader in this case does not closely monitor employees’ actions and individual decisions but he or she remains responsible for the outcome (Mehrotra,& Anju 5).
In a performance curve, employees are ranked into three categories that are high, average and low or non-performers. The workers’ performance is usually distributed within a particular average as decided by the managers (Lüdtke, & Klaus 113). High performers are regarded as highly motivated and able to hit the targets set by their immediate supervisors. These employees are self-directed and need no close supervision since they are able to perform as expected under limited or no observation. After evaluation, highly performing employees are identified and sometimes promoted or incentivized. Average employees, on the other hand, perform better than the low achievers in the performance curve. They can work to a certain level above which they cannot exceed in a normal working environment. Additionally, average employees are subjected to a limited supervision for them to deliver according to the firm’s expectations. Once identified these employees are adequately supported to increase their productivity for example through training and motivating them. Low or non-performers are employees who seldom achieve targets set by the department. They are closely supervised since they are not able to perform sufficiently on their own. After the actual evaluation, non-performers are required to go off the company if no improvement and commitment noted.
Performance curve enables an organization practicing it to identify the best performing employees and acknowledge their efforts accordingly. Once rewarded, high performers feel encouraged and tend to deliver more to develop the organization. In addition, the curve aids in identification of the most suitable job position of an employee. Low performing employees may appear more productive in another job position in the same firm. Performance curve allow the responsible managers to figure out the training needs of the employees. Supervisors are able to identify the most applicable training an employee requires to improve his or her productivity.
The curve can also be used to identify the leadership style the managers should apply. For example, increased under-productivity will oblige them to modify their tactics to ensure good employees’ performance.
Managers can be compelled to change their leadership styles by various reasons, causes and conditions. A change in the working environment can force a leader to adjust his or her management tactics to suit the prevailing condition. In this case, the manager is obliged to alter his or her usual styles to achieve the desired results. An amendment in an organization’s goals and objectives can as well lead to a modification in the leadership techniques employed. It can opt to shun the archaic methods and advocate for the most suitable one which will enable it to accomplish its mission with ease. Another major cause of an adjustment in the management approach in a company is the overall distortion of its structure. Executives can decide either to centralize or decentralize power to achieve a stipulated goal in the organization. Managers can also be compelled to modify their leadership styles in case their management duties are altered. The leader will be forced to modify his or her usual leadership technique to suit his or her novel responsibilities in the company. Besides, the management team can be obligated to alter their strategies in case of increased under-productivity among the employees (Singh, Mohini, and Dianne Waddell 39).
Managers’ ability to modify their leadership styles ensures flexibility in an organization. Rigid and strict adherence to predetermined approaches might contribute to under-productivity and poor performance of employees. Moreover, the program allows a company to achieve its goals and objectives. Continuous application of outmoded tactics can affect a firm’s competitiveness and position in the industry. Moreover, mangers’ ability to alter their leadership techniques can be a motivator to the workforce, thus, an increase productivity.
Works cited
Cassidy, Carlene, and Robert Kreitner. Supervision: Setting People Up for Success. Mason, OH:
South-Western Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.
Mehrotra, Anju. Leadership Styles of Principals: Authoritarian and Task Oriented. New Delhi,
India: Mittal Publications, 2005. Print.
Lüdtke, Klaus H. Process Centrifugal Processors: Basics, Function, Operation, Design,
Application. Berlin Springer, 2004. Print.
Singh, Mohini, and Dianne Waddell. E-business Innovation and Change Management. Hershey,
Pa Idea Group Publ, 2004. Print.
