The 'Situational Leadership' model, that was launched
by Hersey & Blanchard (1) and witch is widely exploited in a very commercial way, is a deception. It is not a guarantee for good leadership,
quite the contrary. It can safely be said that the consistent management
of people based on this model has a negative influence on the motivation,
involvement and flexibility of employees. The most important concerns about this
model are the following:
1- It is stated that if the employee fails in competence (knowledge and / or skill), a steering
style is appropriate. With a little combination of common sense and empathy,
we quickly come to the conclusion that a
bicycle or a car is steered, but living beings require a different kind of
interaction. Even horseback riding in a "natural" way
(see "Natural Horsemanship " on the internet ) already makes a substantial difference in results
compared to the traditional style. People don't want to be steered. They usually do not respond constructively
unless they have become accustomed to external attribution behavior and
dependence. But this behavior is one of the essential challenges
in an organization, and a frequent frustration of many managers. By comparing the Transactional Analysis
model to this, we gain insight into how steering leads to passivity, or
confirms and reinforces it, and therefore gives rise to more steering and even
less involvement and learning survival behavior. The consistent application of this 'Situational
Leadership' is a structural obstacle to utilizing the possibilities of
self-management in an organization.
If people fall short in knowledge or skills, it is
recommended to increase their learning capacity. This requires focused coaching and a lot
of attention for the relation. (doubt, lack of self-confidence, dealing
with failure, overestimation, ...).
2- The model further states that if the
employee falls short in terms of both content, and in terms of involvement
(motivation x self-confidence) a coaching style is appropriate. Coaching is defined as the combination
between steering and supporting. This is a destructive interpretation of
the concept of coaching. A good coach does not steer, but tries to increase the
self-steering capacity. You don't do that by taking over the wheel.
3- If the employee is weak in motivation and
/ or self-confidence, support is recommended as a style. And what if self-confidence is present,
and rather self-overestimation is the problem? Then we should not support extra by
confirming and encouraging?! Introducing a little more realism then
seems more appropriate and more productive for the personal development of the
person concerned and for the results of the organization.
4- If involvement and competence are high,
delegation is recommended. Delegation is a very outdated concept that stems from
the primitive views on leadership. You delegate to extend your own hands and
feet because they are insufficient to do everything
yourself. Of course, managers must learn to let go, but
especially the necessary powers must be transferred to employees, and the responsibility for the result. In Anglo-Saxon culture, this tension is illustrated
with the linguistic distinction between 'responsibilty and accountability'. It would be more productive to work with
real empowerment, where responsibility and authority go hand in hand. That is much more motivating for employees than just being given “SMART ” objectives.
In summary : The interpretation that Hersey and
Blanchard have given to the situational idea, belongs to an outdated management
style. It is frustrating to see that this vision is still
being pursued on a large scale and is anchored in organizational cultures. This leads to the performance capacity of
organizations and the personal development of employees being eroded. We have already imported many good things
from the Anglo-Saxon world, but this is one step too far!
(1) Hersey P., Blanchard K., Management of
organizational behavior, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1982
Hugo.Der.Kinderen
No comments:
Post a Comment