Situational Leadership II: The four phases that team leaders should know about

I wanted to share a very useful leadership framework that I picked up from my recent studies in Frontline Management. It’s called Situational Leadership II (SLII), and it was originally founded by Blanchard International.

SLII essentially combines four different leadership styles into a practical and methodical order, for the benefit of frontline managers who lead and manage staff. It teaches leaders to diagnose the needs of an individual or a team, and then use the appropriate leadership style to respond appropriately.

The four leadership styles of SLII are:

1. Directing style – High level of direction from team leader; typically with low support behaviour towards staff member
2. Coaching style – Medium to high level of direction from team leader; typically with medium to high support behaviour towards staff member
3. Supporting style – Medium to Low level of direction from team leader; typically with high support behaviour towards staff member
4. Delegating style – Low level of direction from team leader; typically low support behaviour towards staff member

The following diagram, courtesy of Blanchard International, illustrates the concept quite well:

 

I must say that, since discovering this methodology nearly 12 months ago, I’ve been able to apply it rather quickly in a practical sense and have undoubtedly become a better team leader for it. However, it’s not really rocket science, and it draws on principles that many team leaders may already be instinctively using (or have previously used) when managing teams of staff with differing needs, skills, goals and commitment levels.

In particular, the above diagram (reproduced from an SLII reference card) provides a quick guide to help team leaders assess their staff’s level of competency and commitment, and establish a suitable leadership approach. While it would be very ignorant to assume that team leadership is always as logical and straight-forward as this, I believe the SLII model provides a very sound and fundamental starting point.

For information and amusement, here’s the corporate sales pitch from www.blanchardinternational.com.au:

“Situational Leadership II (SLII) is the most comprehensive, up-to-date, and practical method of effectively managing and developing people, time, and resources in the world. SLII provides leaders with a model and the tools for creating open communication and developing self-reliance in those they manage. It is designed to increase the frequency and quality of conversations about performance and development. As a result, competence is developed, commitment is gained, and talented individuals are retained.”

Rhetoric aside, SLII is definitely worth its salt. If you can keep pace with your staff’s needs and are ultimately committed to developing your people, then this approach should be a valuable addition to your stable of managerial tools.

Rob

Motivating the troops

In this, my very first post, I thought I’d explore a topic which came up in a recent conversation between a friend and I.  It surrounds the organisational challenge of encouraging staff to go that extra mile and, in this example, work longer hours. 

I’m predominantly looking at this issue from within the corporate white-collar environment, but I’m sure the debate is still pertinent to almost any workplace.  I also apologise from the outset for only analysing the surface of this complex psychological issue which continues to challenge today’s leaders and managers.

So what does it take for staff to want to invest more time into work, and how much does the heavy-handed, dictatorial approach actually work as a management style?  Do employees’ attitudes, work ethics and aspirations come into the equation?   

I’ll start by proposing that – particularly in periods of higher unemployment – today’s managers are raising the bar in terms of what they expect from their staff.  This raising of the bar is fine on the one hand, but it can subsequently lead to a dictatorial management culture comprising bullying and intimidation tactics towards staff in the ultimate pursuit of meeting (or beating) workplace deadlines. 

I’ve seen this with my own eyes several times, and it’s as surprising as it is concerning.  Of course, what ultimately happens is no surprise – staff become disheartened and unhappy, turnover rises and the organisation spends a significant sum of money in recruiting new personnel while the work piles up in the background.  Incredibly, this scenario still seems to play out despite the efforts of most organisations to embrace responsible human resource management and professional standards policy at the macro level; but at the micro (office floor) level, there still seems to be a vulnerability and susceptibility to these kinds of problems. 

So how does this happen?  One reason, not surprisingly, is because the stakes are becoming increasingly higher and managers naturally want to be seen to be performing, achieving results and keeping their troops in line.  Another reason is that some managers are power-hungry, and enjoy being over-controlling and bossy towards their subordinates who are often too afraid to raise a formal complaint. 

I’d also suggest that some managers simply don’t have either the personality, knowledge or disposition to act any other way.  This is not meant to be a criticism as such, but rather a fact which many organisations need to start addressing in earnest.

The fact is, today’s workforce will not accept continued, excessive workplace pressure and diminished employment conditions resulting from heavy-handed management styles. Furthermore, it is not exactly the best way to build effective, supportive and respectful relationships between colleagues, which I cite as a significant component in motivating and retaining staff.

It would, however, be ignorant if we completely dismissed these types of management styles as a complete waste of time.  I accept there’s occasions when a firmer, directive approach is actually more effective and successful.  This still doesn’t mean, however, that it needs to comprise intimidating or bullying tactics. 

Choice is one of my solutions to this issue.  That is, giving staff a choice.  This means being consultative with them and giving them some buy-in about how much longer and harder they work.

That said, for this notion of choice to work effectively, I also think staff need to be of a certain ‘cultural’ pedigree; proactive, motivated and instinctively conscientious.  Not always, but I do think it makes a difference.

It’s my strong belief that these kinds of people will, more often that not, raise their hand if they’re respected and given a choice in the matter. 

Why?  Well because: they feel like they have a level of control over their working conditions; they feel respected and valued by their manager; and they don’t feel as pressured to oblige.

Of course, there are exceptions to this rule.  To give just one example, some staff may have pre-arranged, after-hours commitments which restrict them from being able to work longer hours in the office.  This doesn’t mean, however, that they’re any less committed or motivated to the cause. 

Obviously, it’s not just about giving staff a choice. Among other things, it relies on being a respectful and respected leader who has good staff under their wing.

In closing, I thought I’d briefly reference Maslow’s hierarchy of needs from 1943.  Most of us have studied it at some point in our lives, but I felt compelled to go back and take a look at it in the context of this discussion.  The fourth level of Maslow’s pyramid shows esteem needs (confidence, respect of and by others, self esteem), which I think represents the most important needs of staff in this instance.  That said, we should also acknowledge that safety needs (personal health, security of mind and employment) may also come into the equation.   

I firmly believe that, in treating your staff well, they will ultimately repay you.  Good relationships breed loyalty, and the provision of choice is but one way of working towards this.

Rob