SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS FROM ...



PREFERENCES FOR SUPPORTIVE SLII STYLES: PECULIAR TO AUSTRALIA?

Gayle C. Avery

Macquarie University (Gayle.Avery@mq.edu.au)

ABSTRACT

Considering its popularity as a management tool, relatively little research has been undertaken into Situational Leadership (SL), particularly outside the USA. Research is suggesting that Australian managers favor supportive management styles, and avoid directive styles. Ratings from peers, boss and subordinates and the managers themselves on Blanchard's Situational Leadership model (SLII) indicate that managers in Australia predominantly apply a supportive style. Depth interviews with SLII users indicate that some managers report going to considerable lengths to delegate, or otherwise avoid, being directive. This paper explores some reasons for supportive managerial preferences, raising questions about the cultural suitability of SL models if manager preferences vary between cultures. It is concluded that more research is needed into SL models, particularly into subordinates' perceptions of the effectiveness of supportive styles, whether managers in different cultures exhibit different SL styles, and how effective standard SL prescriptions are for non-US cultures.

1. INTRODUCTION

SLII is Blanchard's (Blanchard, Zigarmi & Zigarmi, 1985) latest variation on the situational leadership model, which he jointly popularized with Hersey (1969, 1982). SLII essentially proposes that an effective manager needs to adapt his or her behavior to the commitment and competence of a particular subordinate to complete a given task or goal (Blanchard et al., 1993). Combining commitment and competence constitutes the subordinate's developmental level, which can range from D1 (least developed) to D4 (highly developed). Hersey's current model uses somewhat different terminology, and varies in some fundamental aspects from SLII, the model used in this paper.

SLII prescribes that effective management depends on two manager behaviors: supporting (“relationship behaviors” such as listening, recognizing, communicating and encouraging) and directing (“task-related behaviors” such as providing instructions and making decisions). By combining supporting and directing behaviors in varying degrees, four basic manager behavior categories or styles emerge (Blanchard et al., 1993). The four styles are: Directing (S1: high on directing behaviors, low on supporting), Coaching (S2: high on directing, high on supporting), Supporting (S3: low on directing, high on supporting), Delegating (S4: low on directing, low on supporting behaviors). No one style is “best”, rather an effective manager uses all four styles depending on the subordinate’s developmental level on a specific task. Subordinate developmental levels of D1 to D4 indicate appropriate leadership styles of S1 to S4, respectively (Blanchard et al., 1985).

According to Blanchard and Nelson (1997), over three million managers have been trained in SL. This is quite an achievement for a model into which relatively little independent research has been conducted, and which has been heavily criticized for its lack of conceptual rigor and consistency (e.g. Blank, et al., 1990; Graeff, 1983, 1997; Vecchio, 1987). Many research findings are not surprisingly inconsistent, given the confusion over the changed models and terminology proposed by Hersey and Blanchard in recent times.

Most research and analytical studies have focused on older SL models, published before SLII. Although Zigarmi, Edeburn and Blanchard (1993) summarized the findings of approximately 50 dissertations, masters theses and research papers on SLII, this is "alarmingly" sparse research for such a widely applied tool (Goodson et al., 1989). Further, like much management theory, SLII stems from the USA and most of the research on it has been conducted on US managers. Researchers are becoming increasingly aware that intercultural differences may limit the applicability of management tools, even in places apparently as "similar" to the USA as Australia. In the next section, we review findings on SLII from Australia.

2. Australian Preferences

Research into SLII among Australian managers reveals clear preferences for particular SLII styles, as measured by two standard 20-item questionnaires – the Leader Behavior Analysis II and the Supervisor Behavior Analysis II. A study of 247 senior and middle managers and 49 frontline supervisors in large Australian organizations found that overall, both sets of managers and their bosses, colleagues and subordinates ranked the managers’ styles consistently (Avery & Keighley, 1998, 1999). Both groups of managers held strong, consistent preferences for supportive styles, particularly S3 (Supporting) followed by S2 (Coaching), and avoided the less supportive styles of S1 (Directing) and S4 (Delegating). These findings have been supported in a series of depth interviews with 17 middle managers trained in SLII, indicating that, even after training, Australian managers favor supporting and prefer to avoid directing styles (Avery & Ryan, 2001). Why might this be?

3. Supportive preferences

By exhibiting supportive preferences, Australian managers are potentially exerting more effort than necessary, and are relating more to employees than is appropriate under SLII prescriptions. Given the pressure in many workplaces today, less focus on supportive behavior could free these managers for other activities. Why then do Australian managers favor supportive styles?

Various reasons for the supportive style preferences have been advanced (Avery & Keighley, 1998, 1999). One reason may be methodological, in that lower self-ratings on directive styles may have simply been an artifact of respondents’ higher self-rankings on S3 (Supporting). The forced-choice nature of the SLII instruments would necessarily have lowered ratings on non-preferred styles. A second explanation might be that managers untrained in SLII are unaware of alternative styles to being supportive. However, this seems unlikely given two main findings. First, about 50 percent of untrained managers were perceived by others at the workplace as able to use more than one style (Avery, 2000). Second, Australian managers continued to express supportive preferences even after training (Avery & Ryan, 2001).

Other factors may underlie supportive preferences among Australians. One may be the considerable evidence that favoring relationships can be generally adaptive in the workplace, not just in Australia (Cairns et al., 1998; Goodson et al., 1989; Vecchio, 1987; Wexley, Alexander, Greenwalt & Couch, 1986; Yukl, 1981). The strong Australian "mateship" culture (Feather, 1975) might reinforce supportive preferences (Ashkanasy & O'Connor, 1997; Ashkanasy & Weierter, 1996), making providing support, and avoiding giving direction, an effective style in the Australian context. Supportive SLII styles (S3 and S2) connote collaboration, comradeship and working together, making these styles potentially more socially desirable in a mateship culture than directing and delegating styles. In particular, S3 (Supporting), which has less of the disliked directive component than coaching (S2), would fit a mateship culture well.

Nonetheless, according to SLII, using a dominant style demonstrates a lack of flexibility, and can indicate that a manager is ignoring, or misdiagnosing, subordinates' developmental levels. Perhaps managers untrained in SLII lack the skills, or encounter difficulties in identifying subordinate developmental levels, or in discriminating accurately between developmental levels. In the face of ambiguities and uncertainties about the appropriate style to use, managers may overuse supportive behavior because of the benefits strong interpersonal relationships bring to the workplace (e.g. Yukl, 1998). Depth interviews with Australian managers trained in using SLII, suggest that this explanation is also unlikely, because respondents did not report undue difficulties in diagnosing subordinates' developmental levels. Most assessed themselves as “average to highly skilled” in diagnosing development levels (Avery & Ryan, 2001). Unfortunately, respondents' subordinates were not asked to verify their managers' self-perception as part of this study.

4. Avoided styles

Directing and Delegating are the two least preferred styles among Australian managers (Avery & Keighley, 1998, 1999). Senior and middle managers seem to prefer Delegating to Directing, whereas supervisors favored Directing more than Delegating. This reversal among the two levels of managers may have arisen because senior and middle managers are in a position to delegate to more experienced people than supervisors can, because of the level of their subordinates. This is consistent with findings from depth interviews with senior and middle managers, who reported delegating Directing activities to other staff (Avery & Ryan, 2001). When asked why they avoided using a directing style, the senior and middle managers expressed some discomfort, and even shame, for not using a range of styles. Interestingly, these managers described techniques for avoiding having to use directing styles themselves – appointing new staff who do not need direction in the view of the manager, or delegating the task of directing staff to subordinates (Avery & Ryan, 2001). One respondent reported finding Directing “tiresome and boring”.

5. Effectiveness

Do Australian managers' preferences for supportive styles match the needs of their Australian subordinates, in other words, is this style effective in Australia? Using the SLII definition of effectiveness, Australian managers were not judged as being effective, (Avery, 2000; Avery & Keighley, 2000). However, before drawing conclusions about the perceived effectiveness of Australian managers, Blanchard's concept of effectiveness needs closer examination. Under SLII, effectiveness means that a manager diagnoses the needs of subordinates well (Zigarmi & Zigarmi, 1991). In essence, manager behavior is effective when it matches the prescriptions of the SLII model. This definition of effectiveness is circular, defining effectiveness in terms of SLII instruments and concepts, rather validating it against external criteria. Effectiveness measured in terms of independent criteria such as employee satisfaction, learning and job performance, remains to be identified.

Addressing this problem, Zigarmi and Zigarmi (1991) proposed that under effective management, employee morale would be high, job-related stress less, organizations would be seen positively, and managers perceived as being interested in employee development. Blanchard et al. (1993) concluded from their review of research into SLII, that when appropriate amounts of direction and support are used (as perceived by employees), higher levels of morale and employee satisfaction result. However, the linkage between effectiveness and performance/satisfaction measures is unclear from other research (eg Butler & Reese, 1991; Norris & Vecchio, 1992). Given that these studies used older SL versions than SLII, the question of SLII effectiveness in particular, remains unresolved. In any case, caution is needed because any correlation between measures of effectiveness and workplace-related factors does not indicate causality.

6. Conclusions

Assuming that preferences for supportive over directing styles are peculiar to the Australian workplace, SL models may present special challenges in Australia. Customized training may be required to enable Australian managers to feel comfortable using the full range of SL styles, particularly Directing. Perhaps the SLII advice to be directive with new employees needs modification in the Australian context, or at least recognition that senior managers will try to avoid this "tiresome and boring" chore. Junior managers may need extra coaching in being directive, as it may befall them to apply this style on behalf of their boss, despite their potential discomfort with it.

More research is clearly needed into SL, both in Australia and elsewhere. First, additional research is needed into the effectiveness of supportive preferences in the Australian workplace, measuring effectiveness independently of the circular SLII definition. Possible criteria include perceived managerial effectiveness in meeting organizational goals, employees' overall level of satisfaction with the manager, effectiveness of the group/team, extent to which the manager meets the needs of staff, as used in other studies (e.g. Lim, 1997). It may be that supportive styles are indeed the most effective styles in some cultures, thereby questioning the universality of SLII's prescriptions and/or training methods.

Further, whether managers resort to supportive styles when they are in doubt about a subordinate's developmental level requires clarification, by asking subordinates about the diagnostic capability of their managers.

Finally, we know little about SLII preferences in other cultures. A wealth of data is probably stored in the databanks of SLII developers and licencees, who might be approached to allow researchers to analyze their data. It may be that managers everywhere have similar supportive preferences, or alternatively that manager preferences differ with the context. Where the cultural context requires managers to be "authoritarian" rather than "matey", Directing may be the favored, and appropriate, style. There is still much to learn about the apparently-simple SL models.

REFERENCES

1) Ashkanasy, N.M. & O'Connor, C. Value congruence in leader-member exchange, Journal of Social Psychology, 1997, 137(5), pp. 647-662.

2) Ashkanasy, N.M. & Weierter, S.J.M. Modeling the leader-member relationship: The role of value congruence and charisma, in Parry, K.W. (ed.), Leadership Research and Practice: Emerging Themes and New Challenges, Pitman, Melbourne, 1996, pp. 91-103.

3) Avery, G.C. & Ryan, J. Situational leadership at work in Australia, Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting Western Decision Sciences Institute Conference, Vancouver, April, 2001, forthcoming.

4) Avery, G.C. Situational leadership preferences in Australia: Congruity, flexibility and effectiveness, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 2000, 6, forthcoming .

5) Avery, G.C. & Keighley, T. Effectiveness of frontline managers in situational leadership, Proceedings of the 29th Western Decision Sciences Institute Meeting, Maui, April 18-21, 2000, pp. 1304-1308.

6) Avery, G.C. & Keighley, T. Perceived situational leadership styles of frontline managers, Proceedings of the 28th Western Decision Sciences Institute Conference, Mexico, April, 1999, pp. 668-670.

7) Avery, G.C. & Keighley, T. Situational Leadership styles of middle and senior managers, Proceedings of the 2nd Asia Pacific Decision Sciences Annual Meeting, Taipei, June 7-11, 1998, pp. 364-366.

8) Blanchard, K.H. & Nelson, R. Recognition and reward, Executive Excellence, 1997, 14(4), 15.

9) Blanchard, K.H., Zigarmi, D. & Nelson, R.B. Situational leadership after 25 years: A retrospective, Journal of Leadership Studies, 1993, 1(1), 22-36.

10) Blanchard, K.H., Zigarmi, P. & Zigarmi, D. Leadership and the One Minute Manager, New York: Morrow, 1985.

11) Blank, W., Weitzel, J.R. & Green, S.G. A test of situational leadership theory. Personnel Psychology, 1990, 43, 579-597.

12) Butler, J.K. Jr & Reese, R.M. Leadership style and sales performance: A test of the Situational Leadership Model, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 1991, 11(3), pp. 37-46.

13) Cairns, T.D., Hollenback, J., Preziosi, R.C. & Snow, W.A. Technical note: A study of Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 1998, 19(2), pp. 113-116.

14) Feather, N.T. Values and Education in Society, Free Press, New York, 1975.

15) Goodson, J.R., McGee, G.W. & Cashman, J.F. Situational leadership theory: A test of leadership prescriptions, Group and Organizational Studies, 1989, 13(4), pp. 446-461.

16) Graeff, C. The situational leadership theory: A critical review, Academy of Management Journal, 1983, 8, 285-291.

17) Graeff, C. Evolution of situational leadership theory – A critical review, Leadership Quarterly, 1997, 8 (2), pp. 153-170.

18) Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. Life cycle theory of leadership, Training and Development Journal, 1969, 2, 6-34.

19) Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. Management of Organizational Behavior. (4th edn.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982.

20) Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. (1996) Great ideas revisited: Revisiting the life-cycle theory of leadership, Training and Development, 50(1), pp. 42-47.

21) Lim, B. (1997) Transformational leadership in the UK management culture, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 18(6), 283-289.

22) Norris, W.R. & Vecchio, R.P. Situational leadership theory: A replication, Group and Organizational Management, 1992, 17(3), pp. 331-342.

23) Vecchio, R.P. Situational Leadership Theory: An examination of a prescriptive theory, Journal of Applied Psychology, 1987, 72, 444-451.

24) Wexley, K.N., Alexander, R.A., Greenwalt, J.P. & Couch, M.A. Attitudinal congruence and similarity as related to interpersonal evaluations in manager-subordinate dyads, Academy of Management Journal, 1980, 23, pp. 320-330.

25) Yukl, G. Leadership in Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1981.

26) Yukl, G. Leadership in Organizations, 4th edition, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1998.

27) Zigarmi, D., Edeburn, C. & Blanchard, K. Research on the LBA: A validity and reliability study, 2nd edition, Blanchard Training and Development, Escondido, CA, 1993.

28) Zigarmi, P. & Zigarmi, D. Leader Behavior Analysis II: First Australian Edition, The PTD Group, Drummoyne, Australia, 1991.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download