1

SITUATIONAL THEORY OF MANAGEMENT

0. Introduction

This work aims at describing what situation theory of management consists in. In
order to achieve its end, the study will therefore include four major points. The first point will
present a general background of the theory in term of the author, time, and the place of
emergence of the said theory. The second point will focus on exploring its basic assumption.
The third point will provide the relavance of the theory while the fourth and last point will
concentrate on presenting the critiques of the theory. A general conclusion will put an end to
the study.

1. Background of situational management theory

Situational management and/or leadership theory was propounded by Paul Hersey and
Kenneth H. Blanchard in 1969, in their classic book “Management of Organizational
Behavior”. This theory was first called the “Life Cycle Theory of Leadership”, then it
was renamed “situational leadership theory” in 1977 (Graeff, 1983).

The longest tradition and greatest growth in the situational approach is to be found in
organizational management and in leadership research (Staehle, 1976). New research
approach then emerged in the USA bringing about contingency and situational model of
leadership. It relinquished the ambitious demands of the general systems theory and
attempted to formulate sets of assumptions concerning the pattern of relationship between
organizational factors, using certain situations as a basis. The object of these efforts was to
modify general, traditional models based on systems theory.

2. Basic assumption of the theory

The basic aim of the situational approach is to avoid the use of general managerial
theories based on partially valid assumptions. In real sense, this theory suggests that there is
no normative single best style of leadership, and that leader’s behaviour, to be effective,
should depend on the situation and that two important dimensions of leader behaviour are
task-behaviour and relationship behaviour (Ramakanth, 1988). Subsequently, situational
theory consists in recognizing that effectiveness and efficiency of managers depends on how
their management style interrelates with the situation in which they operated (leader, the task
to be accomplished, the subordinates, the associates, the superiors, the relationship between
the above, and the environment).
 2

In this sense, situational analysis of organizational behavior promotes a more

differentiated and pragmatic view of problems in management world. It begins with an
analysis of real problem situations, defined by a set of cause and effect relationships, then
interprets under consideration (Staehle, 1976). In other words, there is no generally valid,
uniquely optimal method of action, but rather a number of alternatives, one of which may be
appropriate to the particular situation.

Consequently, the task of the situational theory is to develop alternative concepts,

structures, and strategies in order to embody them in a decision model. This task consists in
selecting from the multitude of alternatives those which, under specific situations are more
successful or more efficient than others. In real sense, situational theory in management
establishes relationship between independent variables such as situational components,
situational factors, and context variables and dependent variables such as dimensions of
structure and behavior in order to make decision of intervening fectors.

Situational model adjusts itself according to the four management quadrants in

relationship to level of task-maturity in an organization: (1) high task and low relationship,
(2) high task and high relationship. (3) low task and high relationship, and (4) low task and
low relationship represented by HT&LR, HT&HR, LT&HR, LT&LR (Ramakanth, 1988;
Graeff, 1983). Hence, a manager needs to identify the style of management to adapt under a
given situation with specific level of maturity of his organization. Hersey and Blanchard
came up with an instrument called the Leader Effectiveness and Adaptability Description
(LEAD) which was designed to provide insight into one's perception of how he/she behaves
as a leader.

Finally, Hersey and Blanchard provide four styles in situational theory in accordance
with the four level of maturity treated above, namely, telling when there is HT&LR, selling
when there is HT&HR, participating in a situation of LT&HR, and delegating in a case
LT&LR. (Luizzi, 2017; McLaurin, 2013). Telling is more of directing whereby a leader
specifically instructs subordinates what to do and how to do it. Selling is concerned with
coaching whereby the leader provides information and direction in this style, but there is also
more two-way communication with subordinates. Leaders “sell” their message to get
employees onboard, persuading them to work toward the common goal. Participating entails
supporting in the sense that with participation, leaders focus more on relationships and less
on direction. In so doing, the situational leadership manager works closely with the team or a
 3

specific person and shares decision-making responsibilities. In delegating, although a leader

will still monitor tasks and organizational progress, he will pass much of the responsibility
for executing and completing he established goals onto the individual subordinates,
committees, or work groups.

3. Relevance of situational management theory

The rational behind this theory is that organizations vary necessarily from one another
due to different situations. Therefore, management style towards efficiency should never be
the same. This theory is pertinent because it is context-based (political, economic, social,
cultural, job demand, time, competence of the members, attitudes between subordinates and
leaders). It avoids the danger exhibited by the normative model (uniformity). In this logic,
situation is an influencing variable that defines and creates the need of defining what
combination of traits and behavior is required by the leader to be successful in that particular
situation (McLaurin, 2013).

Moreover, the basic concept behind this model is that as the level of followers or
employees readiness increases, effective leader behavior will involve less structure and less
relationship support. In a study conducted in 2004 on situational theory, it was found out that
the higher the leader's leadership score, the higher the employee willingness to perform a task
and higher the satisfaction. Also, higher the willingness, the higher was the job satisfaction
and performance (Chen & Silverthorne, 2004).

4. Critique

Although this theory makes sense intuitively, many still do not feel the research
shows that the theory actually works. For instance, for Luizzi (2017) , given the wide level of
variance in these factors, choices surrounding leadership are highly subjective in regard to the
person, committee, or group that’s influenced. In addition, the findings of a study conducted
in 1998 by Cairns, Hollenback, Preziosi, & Snow among 151 executives within service and
manufacturing businesses of large Fortune 100 company stated that situational leadership
theory appears to be unable to predict for high-maturity employee and suggested that
leadership still matters for individuals at this high degree of follower readiness (Cairns,
Hollenback, Preziosi, & Snow, 1998).

5. Conclusion
 4

The advantages and disadvantages of situational leadership/management allow for

greater flexibility in the workplace. It gives each team member an advantage because their
leader is adapting their personal approaches to meet specific needs. To be successful, the
situational must have high emotional intelligence, be empathetic, and continue to keep an eye
on long-term strategies while meeting short-term needs.
 5

References
Cairns, T. D., Hollenback, J., Preziosi, R. C., & Snow, W. A. (1998).
Technical note: A Study of Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Leadership Theory.
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 19(.2),, 113-116.

Chen, J. C., & Silverthorne, C. (2004). Leadership effectiveness, leadership

style and employee readiness. Leadership and Organization Development Journal,
26(4), 280-288.

Graeff, C. L. (1983). The Situational Leadership Theory: A Critical View. The

Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 285-291.

Luizzi, P. (2017, August). Situational leadership. Retrieved from Fire

engineering: https://www.fireengineering.com/index.html

McLaurin, J. R. (2013). The role of situation in the leadership process: A

review and application. Electronic Business Journal 12(2) , 92-109.

Ramakanth, J. (1988). On the Situational Leadership Theory of Hersey and

Blanchard. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 24(1), 1-16.

Staehle, W. H. (1976). Situational Approach to Management. Management

International Review, 16(3), , 59-69.