1

CHAPTER 6
Leadership

Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Theory

Another theoretical framework that is useful for analyzing leadership and supervisory behavior is
situational theory. Unlike the contingency theories of Fiedler and House, however, situational theory has
been designed primarily as avehicle for management training rather than as a guide for research.
Consequently, there is little systematic, empirical research that tests the theory. Nevertheless, the model
provides some valuable insights into leader-follower behavior; it helps leaders diagnose the situation and
develop strategies to adapt their leader behavior to meet the demands of the situation. Edgar Schein
capture's the intent of the theory when he observes that leaders must have the personal flexibility and
range of skills necessary to vary their own behavior according to the needs and drives of subordinates. If
teachers' needs and motives are different, they must be treated differently. 62

Situational theory isan attempt to provide a leader with some understanding of the relationships between
effective styles of leadership and the level of maturity of followers. Simply stated, the basic assumption
of the theory is that leader effectiveness depends on the appropriate machine of leader behavior with the
maturity of the group or individual. Although Hersey and Blanchard recognize the importance of many
situational variables (e.g., position power, task, time, and so forth), they emphasize maturity of the group
or followers as the critical situational variable that moderates the relationship between leader behavior
and effectiveness. Two other important characteristics of the theory are noteworthy. First, it applies to
both individuals and groups. Second, the theory addresses both hierarchical relationships and
relationships among colleagues; therefore, it should have application whether one is attempting to
influence the behavior of a subordinate, a superior, or a colleague.

Leader Behavior. Situational theory is concerned with the behavior, not the personality, of the leader. In
fact, the term "leadership style," unlike Fiedler's definition, refers to one of four patterns of leader
behavior; it does not refer to the motivational needs of the individual.

Drawing from the Ohio State leadership studies and William Reddin's Tri-Dimensional Leadership
Effectiveness Model 63, two dimensions of leadership behavior-task behavior and relationship behavior-
are cross-partitioned to define four leadership styles. Leaders are classified as having a style high in task
and low in relationship behaviors (Q1), high in task and high in relationship behaviors (Q2), high in
relationship and low in task behaviors (Q3) and low in both relationship and task behaviors (Q4). The
typology of styles is depicted in Figure 6.2. Each of these styles can
beeffective depending on the situation.

Situation. Situational theory uses only one variable to analyze the nature of the situation-maturity.
Maturity is the capacity to set high but attainable goals, the willingness and ability to take responsibility,
and the experience of an individual or group. 64 However, maturity is a relative concept. An individual or
a group is not mature or immature in any general sense. Rather, maturity is defined only in relation to a
specific task. The question is not is the individual or group mature or immature? But rather on this
specific job or task, what is the level of maturity of the group or individual?
 2

Individuals who have a high level of task-relevant maturity not only have the ability, knowledge,
experience, and motivation to do the job but also feelings of self-confidence and self-respect, On the other
hand, individuals who have a low level of task-relevant maturity lack the ability, motivation and
knowledge to do the job as well as psychological maturity.65 As shown in Figure 6.3, the situation can be
conceived along a maturity-immaturity continuum, which in turn can be used to identify four types of
situations (A, M3, M2, MI) based on the level of maturity.

High Style of leader

High relationship High task
And And
Relationship Low task High
behavior relationship
Low relationship High task
And And
Low task Low
relationship
Low High
Task behavior

Figure 6.2 Hersey and Blanchard's Leadership Styles

Adapted from Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. Blanchard, Management of Organizational Behavior.
Utilizing Human Resources, 3d ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977), p. 103. Copyright @
1977 Prentice-Hall, Inc. Used by permission of the publisher.

In addition to determining the level of maturity of individuals in a group, a leader may also have to
determine the maturity level of the group as a whole, especially if the group works together in the same
area. Hersey and Blanchard illustrate this situation with a classroom example, explaining that "a teacher
may find that a class as a group may be at one level of maturity in a particular area, but a student within
that group may be at a different level. When the teacher is one-to-one with that student, he or she may
have to behave quite differently than when working with the class as a group,66 So too with other groups.
The maturity of both individuals and the work group determines the appropriate supervisory or leader
behavior.

Effectiveness. There is no concise definition of effectiveness in situational theory. Success in getting

others to do a job in a prescribed way does not guarantee effectiveness. According to Hersey and
Blanchard, effectiveness is a complex concept that involves not only objective performance but also
human costs and psychological conditions. Thus, the term is defined broadly; it includes the evaluation of
how well the group achieves its task in addition to the psychological state of individuals and the group. In
brief, effectiveness is a function of productivity and performance, the condition of the human resources,
and the extent to which both long- and short-term goals are attained 67.
 3

MATURE IMMATURE

Sets realistic Sets unrealistics

goals goals or set no
goals
Assume Avoid
responsibility responsibility
Has ability and Lacks ability and
technical technical
knowledge knowledge
Has self-respect Lacks self-respect
and self and self-
confidence confidence

HIGH MODERATE LOW

M4 M3 M2 M1

Figure 6.3 Maturity-Immaturity Continuum

Matching Style and Situation. According to situational theory, effectiveness is promoted by matching
leader behavior with the appropriate situation. The match of behavior depends on the level of maturity in
the situation. The guiding principle of matching is succinctly stated by Hersey and Blanchard as follows:

As the level of maturity of their followers continues to increase in terms of accomplishing a

specific task, leaders should begin to reduce their task behavior and increase relationship behavior
until the individual or group reaches a moderate level of maturity. As the individual or group
begins to move into an above-average level of maturity, it becomes appropriate for leaders to
decrease not only task behavior but also relationship behavior. 68

Hersey and Blanchard argue that when the group or individual reaches a high maturity level, little task
and relationship behavior is necessary from the leader; leadership emerges from the group. The delegation
of leader functions to a mature group is viewed as a positive demonstration of trust and confidence.

The theory is a dynamic one. Leadership behavior changes with the maturity of the group. The leader's
goal is to provide the necessary leader behavior while simultaneously helping the group to mature and
assume more of the leadership itself. This cycle is illustrated by the bell-shaped curve passing through the
four leadership quadrants, as shown in Figure 6.4.

The theory, as depicted graphically in Figure 6.4, is a matching of the four leadership patterns (Q1, Q2,
Q3, Q4) with the four situations of maturity (Ml, M2, M3, M4). The appropriate leadership style for each
level of follower maturity is portrayed by the curvilinear relationship in each quadrant. The maturity level
of followers is expressed below the leadership style along a continuum from immature to mature. The
bell-shaped curve means that as the maturity level of one's followersincreases along the continuum from
immature to mature, the appropriate style of leadership moves according to the curvilinear relationship. 69
Hence, four general guiding propositions can be deduced from the model.
 4

Figure 6.4 Effective Leader-Situation Match

Adapted from Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. Blanchard, Management of Organizational Behavior.
Utilizing Human Resources, 3d ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977), p. 194. Copyright
1977, Prentice-Hall, Inc. Used by permission of the publisher.

1. When the group is very immature (MI), a task-oriented (Q1) leadership style is most effective.
2. When the group is moderately immature (M, a dynamic leadership style (Q2, high task and high
relationship behavior) is most effective.
3. When the group is moderately mature (M3), a relationship-oriented leadership style M) is most
effective.
4. When the group is very mature (A), a passive leadership style (Q4) is most effective.

The model also denotes that within each leadership quadrant there should be more or less emphasis on
task or relationship behavior depending on the level of maturity. Finally, the model suggests that the
maturity level of groups or individuals can be improved over time, and task-oriented behavior decreases
as the maturity of the group improves.

Some Implications. The supervisor who can accurately diagnose the maturity of followers has another
situational model to guide hisor her leadership behavior. Knowing when to be task-oriented and
relationship-oriented is a beginning of the improvement of performance. But knowing what to do and
doing it are two different things. Some individuals, for example, have a difficult time being task-oriented
in their behavior--even when they know it is appropriate. Others have difficulty being relationship-
oriented; the task is too important. Finally, some leaders cannot be passive in their leadership initiatives in
a group; they need to lead even if the group (M4) can lead itself. Thus, if a leader is to use the model
effectively, he or she needs the flexibility in disposition and behavior to be able to change styles.
Individuals who have had limited experience using a wide range of styles will probably need a lot of time,
practice, and perhaps training before they develop enough behavioral flexibility to change styles
comfortably as the situation demands it.
 5

The, model also suggests that simply matching the style with the situation to improve performance is not
enough. The leader has another role: to improve the maturity of the group as it engages in a specific task.
Ultimately, the leader's goal is to provide the group or individual with the ability, knowledge, skills,
responsibility, motivation, and confidence to perform the task without the leader's help. In a sense, the
leader's direction and, eventually, social support will subside as the group or individual grows and
develops. Thus, developmental activities are as important as leadership behavior.

The supervisor is often in the middle between the principal and teachers. If the principal is starkly task-
oriented, then the supervisor may have problems with the developmental growth of faculty. Here the
supervisor has an education problem with the principal. First, the supervisor must be able to explain the
theory and convince the principal that over the long run the more flexible strategy of the model will be
more effective. Then the principal and supervisor must join forces as a team to facilitate the growth and
development of the faculty. Cooperation and specialization of roles might emerge, for example, with the
principal being the task-oriented leader and the supervisor the relationship-oriented leader. Hence, in
areas where the faculty is not mature, the principal might provide the early task direction(MI), with the
supervisor joining later to provide supportive relationships (M2). In time the principal would relinquish
the task direction to the group (M3), and eventually the supervisor would withdraw relationship
leadership as the group took over the function itself (see Figure 6.3). Of course, such a cooperative
process is easier said than done; it requires understanding, security, and maturity on the part of both
leaders, but the point is that the model does supply guidelines for joint leadership activities.

Institutional Leadership

Thus far our analyses of leadership have been primarily descriptive and analytic. Leadership, however,
occurs in a cultural context. Leaders have purposes, beliefs, and commitments, and the situations in which
they perform are imbued with purposes, ideals, norms, rituals, and traditions. Leadership is an expression
of culture; that is, leaders attempt to develop and nurture the organizational value patterns and norms as a
response to the needs of individuals and groups for order, stability, and meaning. 70

There is little doubt that effective supervision requires interpersonal leadership; human interactions need
to be healthy. The leader's task in this role is to smooth the path of human interaction, facilitate
communication, evoke personal devotion, and allay anxiety.71There is, however, a broader notion of
leadership, one that focuses on institutional values. The institutional leader "is primarily an expert in the
promotion and protection of values.72 Institutional leadership is a basic function of the principal; it is an
attempt to infuse the school with values beyond the technical requirements of teaching. It is the
development of institutional integrity that goes beyond efficiency and beyond organizational forms and
procedures. The leader is responsible for developing a structure uniquely adapted to the mission and role
of the enterprise. The principal as institutional leader requires an ability to interpret the role and character
of the school, to perceive and develop models for thought and behavior, and to find modes of
communication that will inculcate general perspectives-that is, infuse day-to-day behavior with long-run
meaning and purpose. The art of institutional leadership is the art of developing an organizational culture-
-one with strong and enduring values.

It is our position that building a strong school culture is the central leadership function of the principal. If
collaborative supervision is to work, a consistent set of shared values must be developed and nurtured
within the school. These shared orientations build commitment and teacher loyalty as well as encourage
 6

the decentralization of authority. Activities are loosely coupled to the formal structure but tightly coupled
to the core values. Professional autonomy and expertise are stressed and structural constraints are
minimized.

Shared values should address such issues as the scope of education; attitudes toward risk; attitudes toward
students, parents, colleagues, and administrators; and attitudes toward discipline. "Schools are for
students." "Both cognitive and affective development of students are vital." "Experiment with your
teaching." "Make sure you generate a reasonable share of mistakes." "Supervisors are colleagues." "Stay
close to your students." "Strive for academic excellence." "Set high but attainable academic goals."
"Teachers are professionals." Are these empty slogans or core values? Openness, authenticity,
participativeness, humanism, intimacy, and trust: hollow concepts or shared values? Such values are
hallmarks of effective organizations.' Ultimately, the principal is responsible for building culture and
providing an atmosphere in which faculty grow and develop. Without a climate of openness, trust, and
participation (see Chapter 7), the supervisor's leadership initiatives to improve instruction will be severely
limited if not counterproductive.

SUMMARY

Leadership remains an elusive but important factor in the organizational life of schools. Because of its
complex nature, perspectives and definitions of leadership vary widely. Early studies concentrated on
traits of individuals, attempting to identify the physical, personality, and general ability characteristics
that separated leaders from followers. The lack of success in finding the key traits of loaders, however,
prompted a shift in the focus of study away from traits to behavior of leaders.

What are the behaviors that distinguish effective and ineffective leaders? This question is complicated by
the fact that there is not complete consensus on what constitutes leader effectiveness. Group output, group
morale, and individual
satisfaction have all been proposed and used as criteria of effectiveness. Nevertheless, the behavioral
approach to the study of leadership, using a variety of techniques, has produced the remarkably consistent
finding that there are two general and basic dimensions of leadership---concern for tasks and concern for
individual relationships. But in spite of the success in identifying these basic patterns of behavior, the
relationships between leadership behavior and effectiveness have been much less conclusively
established.

Although it is now clear that traits, situations, and behavior are all important in determining leadership
effectiveness, the nagging question of what kinds of leaders for what kinds of situations remains.
Contemporary research and theory have turned to a contingency approach in an attempt to answer this
difficult question. Two different contingency theories and their implications for administration and
supervision in schools were described and discussed - Fiedler's contingency model and Hersey and
Blanchard's situational theory. Each of these perspectives calls attention to differentbut important aspects
of leading.
 7

Fiedler argues that leadership style is determined by the motivational needs of the leader and that the
effectiveness of the group in accomplishing its task is a function of the relationship between leadership
style and favorableness of the situation. Thus, effective group performance is contingent upon the leader's
motivations and the leader's ability to exert influence in the group. Hersey and Blanchard's situational
theory postulates that leader effectiveness depends on the appropriate matching of leader behavior with
the maturity of the group or individual.

Each of the approaches presented in this chapter identifies important elements that aid in understanding
leadership effectiveness in schools. Each of the models points to factors that facilitate or constrain
attempts by the principal and supervisor to improve the teaching-learning process. Alone none of the
perspectives is sufficient, but together they provide a solid basis for understanding and predicting
behavior. The crucial elements of leadership are summarized in Table 6.5

Table 6.5 Key Elements of Leadership