Matching Leader Style

Are you a match to your current leader assignment?

Being a successful leader requires flexibility and adaptability along with the capacity to work in uncertain and complex conditions. Given that the objective is to achieve business goals (e.g. revenues, profits, mission), the leader needs to match his/her decisions and behaviors in order to heighten influence with followers and stimulate them to work at their individual capacities.

Situational Leadership¹ suggests that if a worker’s ability, willingness and confidence are low on a specific project, the leader serves the employee and organization’s interest by being task directive while focusing on completing the work. However, as the worker becomes stronger and confidence is elevated, the leader must shift and rebalance the orientation away from the task toward the relationship; an increased degree of empowerment becomes important and optimal because the worker is more capable of going it alone (“I know you can do this, so go do it. If you need my assistance, please ask.”).¹ There are several motivational increases that also occur with followers as the degree of empowerment is extended.

Of course, situational leadership¹ assumes the leader has the capability of making the switch. Not only that, it means that he or she can “slide” from one orientation to the other in the course of daily and ongoing interactions. It is important that a leader try to do this because workers reside at different places on the capability/willingness/confidence curve. However, dialing up different behaviors at a moment’s notice is very difficult for most. In my corporate, consulting and teaching career of 33 years, I have witnessed only two leaders who had the ambidexterity to rotate between relationship and task orientation at will. Instead, most build upon what has worked in the past and continually reuse the same method.

Since this ability is so important, researchers began to search for ways to match the style with the situation so that it is clear when a particular orientation would likely be more successful. Fred Fiedler created a model entitled Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) that made such an attempt. The model begins from the premise that a leader has a hard-wired (nearly) unchangeable orientation toward either a task or relationship style.² The model also reveals that when the orientation is matched to the situation, the leader's effectiveness increases.

A tool was created to provide the practitioner the means to “test” what orientation he or she prefers. Most leaders lean toward one orientation or the other with some falling in the middle.³ Researchers have long challenged the validity and reliability of this tool, but no matter, the concepts resonate; human beings have patterns of behavior that are comfortable and, as a result, tend to be favored.

With one’s known orientation, the LPC model then offers a mechanism by which a leader can recognize and understand if he or she is matched to a given situation. It suggests that there are three situational variables that signal favorability or degree of control for the leader. As the mix of favorability shifts, a different applied orientation is recommended.² 

The three variables are defined as:⁴ (1) Relationship with Workers (general climate, acceptance and attitudes toward the leader); (2)  a task that is structured or unstructured (structured is defined as having clear procedures, steps and goals); and (3) Relative Power Position of the leader (if the leader has a legitimate exercisable authority over the followers). Generally, if conditions are very favorable or unfavorable for the leader across these variables, then a task orientation is likely to be more effective. The table below describes what orientation is best for which situation.⁵

Relations with Workers	Task Structure	Power Position	Recommended leader orientation: Effective Style
Good	Structured	Strong	Task
Good	Structured	Weak	Task
Good	Unstructured	Strong	Task
Good	Unstructured	Weak	Task
Poor	Structured	Strong	Relationship
Poor	Structured	Weak	Relationship
Poor	Unstructured	Strong	Relationship
Poor	Unstructured	Weak	Task

In other words, the model suggests that when a leader's orientation matches the situation, he or she will optimize effectiveness. While the model does not offer clear delineations between each of the variables (e.g. when good relations become poor relations),² the ideas resonate. These thoughts work not only at the enterprise level but also at the unit level.

One challenge: What happens if the leader has a strong task perspective but the situation calls for a relationship leader? There are options. Task and relationship behaviors can be increased and, with practice and reflection, a leader can get better at exhibiting the least comfortable. If a leader finds this difficult, as many might, another option is to hire lieutenants who can assist where the leader is weak. A more extreme option is to find a position where one's dominant style is a match. Human resource managers charged with hiring should also be cognizant of whether a leader's style matches a situation before an offer is extended. It is quite common for some CEOs to be perfect when the business is in crisis but, after reaching relative stability, find it difficult to manage.

Being matched to the situation is essential to leader effectiveness. It is important that the leader and his/her organization recognize when he or she is not a match to the presenting situation and find ways to improve the outputs; the goal is to always reach for the objectives identified by the business.

Please feel free to make comments.

 References

¹ Hersey, P. and K.H. Blanchard (1995). Situational Leadership. Leader’s Companion: Insights on Leadership Through the Ages. J.T. Wren. New York, Free Press: 207 - 211.

² Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

³ Kennedy Jr., J.K. (1982). Middle LPC Leaders and Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 1-14.

⁴ Daft, R.L. (2008). The Leadership Experience (4th ed.). Mason, Ohio: Thomson Southwestern.

⁵ Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Table taken from page 210.

⁶ Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2011). Organizational Behavior (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.