Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

Blanchard Hersey Leadership Situational

Have you ever heard of Blanchard Hersey Leadership Situational? This theory is a theory that discusses the style of leadership. The theory is also known as the situational leadership theory. This is a leadership theory developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard.

Paul Hersey is the author of Situational Leader. Dan Ken Blanchard is an expert and author of The Minute Manager, who later also writes the Management of Organizational Behavior (now published in the 9th edition).

This theory was originally introduced as "Life Cycle Theory of Leadership". Until the mid-1970 "Life Cycle Theory of Leadership" was changed to "Situational Leadership Theory". Then in the late 1970's and early 1980's, each author developed his own leadership theory.

Hersey developed the Situational Leadership Model and Blanchard developed Situational Leadership Model II. However, this time we will discuss about Blanchard Hersey Leadership Situational.

In that theory, Hersey and Blanchard say that a leader must adjust leadership style with follower development level. This is based on how well prepared the subordinates are to carry out a task that will include the need for competence and motivation.

The basic foundation of situational leadership theory is that there is no single best leadership style. The Situational Leadership Style Model of Hersey-Blanchard lies in two basic concepts: the combination of leadership styles and the development stage / level of individual or group maturity.

The definition of situational leadership is "a leadership contingency theory that focuses on followers readiness / maturity". The essence of situational leadership theory is that a leader's leadership style will vary, depending on the degree of readiness of his followers.

Fundamental understanding of situational leadership theory is about the absence of the best leadership style. Effective leadership is dependent on the relevance of the task, and almost all successful leaders always adapt the right leadership style.

Leadership effectiveness is not just a matter of influence on individuals and groups but also depends on the task, work or function needed as a whole. Thus the situational leadership approach focuses on the phenomenon of leadership in a unique situation.

From this perspective, an effective leader must be able to adjust his style to the demands of a changing situation. Situational leadership theory relies on two fundamental concepts: the level of preparedness or maturity of individuals or groups as followers and leadership styles.

According to Hersey and Blanchard, there are four leadership styles (S1 to S4) tailored to the employee development stage (D1 to D4). The leadership style that will be applied by a leader will determine the success of the task performed by the person he leads.

Read also: 10 Best Business Leaders Who Changed The World

Situational Leadership Style of Blanchard and Hersey

Situation Leadership S1 (Telling / Directing). This situation occurs when a subordinate is incapable of performing a task and is unwilling or afraid to try something new so it must play a huge directing role and instruct what the subordinates should do.

This usually happens to new employees who do not yet know what a job is doing. At this stage attention is still aimed at developing the competence of subordinates who are practically not yet built properly. The boss will also develop a structure of work on how a job is done and how well control is done. In essence at this situation subordinates only do what is ordered by the boss.

Situation Leadership S2 (Selling / Coaching). This situation occurs when subordinates have less competence but they have a strong desire to work and want to try new things. In this situation leaders are more likely to advise on the implementation of various jobs than to instruct subordinates to do the work in detail.

Thus the leader should try to "sell" ideas on how to carry out more effective and efficient work so that the motivation already possessed by his subordinates can be further improved so that the work given to him can be solved properly and correctly.

Situation Leadership S3 (Participating / Supporting). In this situation, subordinates have high competencies but they are reluctant or have insecurity to do the job. In situations like this the leader must show what the subordinates must do and ask the subordinates to work together to carry out the work that the subordinates have to do.

This is because the subordinates have the ability to do the job. In this situation, leaders should also motivate / encourage employees with the goal of increasing the confidence they have that they are capable of performing their duties.

Leadership Situation S4 (Delegating / Observing). In this situation employees have the competence and also a high commitment to complete the task so that leaders can perform delegation of work to the subordinates. As a result leaders in this situation have a low focus on work and working relationships with their subordinates.

Subordinates in this situation need little support from leaders because they can do the work independently. Next, a leader also needs to develop followers and also motivate followers.

Developing and Motivating Followers

A good leader develops the competence and commitment of the followers so that they motivate themselves rather than rely on others to be directed or guided.

According to Hersey's high performance leaders create realistic expectations of the high performance of followers. Conversely, low leader expectations lead to low followers' performance. According to Ken Blanchard four combinations of competencies and commitments will create the level of development as mentioned in the notation below:

D1 - Low competence and high commitment
D2 - Low competence and low commitment
D3 - High competence and low commitment
D4 - High competence and high commitment

In order to create an effective cycle, a leader needs to motivate his followers properly. Regarding this theory, Hersey and Blanchard continue to agree with the original theory until 1977.