This post was originally included in the 24th issue of my weekly newsletter. If you find it interesting, maybe you’d be interested in subscribing.
If you were asked which leadership style was the best, what would you answer?
I already looked for an answer to this question in a post about leadership styles months ago. And this was one of the multiple questions that my coach asked me in my previous session with him.
The answer wasn’t one of them, but all. The trick is that we may adapt our leadership based on the situation and the people we have.
This question was the preparation for a knowledge pill based on Situational Leadership, an adaptive leadership style that identifies a leadership style based on the person’s maturity or development.
But this is not only about having the flexibility to adapt our leadership style. Knowing our team, and showing the proper skills based on its maturity, imply that our success as managers is linked to our ability to coach our teams.
And this is the main topic from The Leader as a Coach. In this article, Herminia Ibarra and Anne Scoular wrote about the twenty-first-century managers that simply don’t (and can’t!) have all the right answers. Being a manager is a role that is becoming like a coach.
But what means being a coach? Mainly, it is about engaging in with all their people all the time, in ways that help define the organization’s culture and advance its mission. As a coach, we need to help ensure that the people move forward aligned with the cultural values and the mission.
And how could we do it? In general, we could ask questions instead of providing answers, support employees instead of judging them, and facilitate their development instead of dictating what has to be done. It will always depend on what is needed in a given situation with any single person. There will be moments where dictating will be required, and so asking questions.
It doesn’t seem complicated, but it is, and it’s also a huge shift. Management is usually unenthusiastic about coaching, and studies have shown that people usually think they are good at it, but they don’t.
A classical case of study at executive training is to play the role of a manager who must decide whether to fire or coach a direct report that is not performing up to par. Nine of ten decide to coach. We all know the answer, even when we don’t lead by example.
But when it comes time to play, people demonstrate much room for improvement. People know what they’re supposed to do, but it doesn’t come naturally because they aren’t used to it.
In the same article, Herminia and Anne presented the following 2×2 axis with one axis showing the information, advice, or expertise that a coach puts into the relationship with the person being coached, and the other showing the motivational energy that a coach pulls out by unlocking that person’s own insights and solutions.
The article also introduces other interesting points, like the GROW coaching model, especially for non-directive coaching. I encourage you to read it.
Returning to the original topic, situational leadership strategy encourages leaders to take stock of their team members, weigh the many variables in their workplace, and choose the leadership style that best fits their goals and circumstances.
There isn’t a uniform leadership style that works for everyone all the time. You may need to adjust your style based on the people you’re managing, the context in which you’re leading, or the external pressures you’re under.
According to STU university, there are two models for Situational or Adaptative Leadership, the one described by Daniel Goleman and another by Ken Blanchard and Paul Hershey.
In this newsletter, I am going to focus on the second. I also mentioned Goleman’s in my blog post. You could find below a summary of the Six leadership Styles he proposed.
The Situational Leadership Model has two fundamental concepts: leadership style and the individual or group’s performance readiness level, also referred to as maturity level or development level.
There are two variables to consider when measuring Maturity: ability and willingness. Ability is related to our capacity to do a task, and willingness has to do with attitude.
There are two characteristics to consider also when measuring Maturity:
Based on the ability/willingness, they identified four levels of Maturity (M1 to M4).
Do you remember the 2×2 matrix that presented Herminia and Anne regarding coaching styles? Well, regarding leadership, it is a similar case. We found two different approaches, task or relationship-oriented, directive or nondirective, more controller or developer.
Blanchard and Hershey evolved the model differently, bringing new models. Blanchard’s situational leadership II model uses the terms “competence” (ability, knowledge, and skill) and “commitment” (confidence and motivation) to describe different levels of development.
According to Ken Blanchard, four combinations of competence and commitment make up what we call development level.
Find below Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Model II based on competence and commitment.
You’ll find slight differences in the leadership naming, and maturity is related to the development.
You will find a more detailed explanation of each group’s behavior and development in the post How Practicing Situational Leadership Can Change Your Team’s Dynamic.
I am pretty sure that while reading this, you were able to identify if a person could fit into any M or D categorization. Probably you find that this theory makes sense, or it is common sense.
If not, try to think about it. Analyze which maturity or development level applies to each person of your team or group, and which leadership style fits his current level and situation. And be aware of the differences between each.
Before ending, two final considerations:
I hope you liked it. If so, please share it! Do not hesitate to add your comments. And, if you want to stay up to date, don’t miss my free newsletter, where this post began.
As always, thanks for reading.
Also published on Medium.
Last December, I started a coaching series, and while I was doing my introspection analyzing…
Today is January 1st. It is time to review what happened last year and set…
I started this post in my newsletter last week, but I decided to move it…
Political and group polarization was the starting topic in my last newsletter (issue number #18).…
I included the topic of introverted leaders in my eighteenth newsletter. This post is based on…
Communication and Leadership in Times of Crisis was the title of my seventeenth newsletter issue.…
This website uses cookies.