How much direction and support would help?
Someone takes on a responsibility they have not handled before. They may understand the overall purpose while needing a clear explanation of the process. An experienced colleague might want authority to proceed and a conversation about an unfamiliar risk.
Both situations ask a leader to consider what would be useful for this person on this task. Situational Leadership offers a vocabulary for discussing direction and support. That vocabulary can open a conversation, provided the person’s own account remains part of it.
What does the framework describe?
The Hersey and Blanchard tradition combines different levels of directive and supportive behaviour. Its versions use terms such as directing, coaching, supporting and delegating, relating a leader’s approach to a person’s task-specific development or readiness.
The commercial models have developed separately, so a programme should be clear about which version it uses. For a leader considering the idea, the practical question is what the person needs to understand, decide or practise in relation to the work at hand.
How should the research be read?
Thompson and Vecchio’s 2009 paper tested three versions of situational leadership theory. Its findings raise questions about the empirical support for the models’ particular matching prescriptions. Earlier critical reviews also examined conceptual issues in the theory.
That makes it sensible to distinguish a useful training conversation from a validated rule for choosing a leadership response. Ask what evidence supports the specific claim a programme makes and how you will evaluate its usefulness in your own setting.
What else belongs in the conversation?
Experience with the task matters, but it is not the whole picture. The person may lack access to information, have competing commitments or be unsure what they can decide. They may want feedback on one part of a responsibility while being ready to work independently on another.
Ask what they would find helpful and discuss the requirements together. Work preferences can contribute to how you frame the support: preparation before a conversation, space to explore options or an explicit sequence. They do not replace evidence of competence or establish someone’s commitment.
What could the leader and colleague agree?
Choose the responsibility and describe the outcome, boundaries and decision authority. Agree where the person will proceed independently, when they will consult someone else and how feedback will be available. Make sure the arrangement is realistic given the workload and resources.
Review it after relevant work has taken place. What did the person manage with confidence? Where was support useful? What could now change? The aim is to adapt a working arrangement through dialogue and evidence, keeping both the person and the demands of their role in view.
Sources and further reading
What would you like to explore?
If this relates to work in your organisation, we can begin with a conversation about your situation and what you want to achieve.
Talk with David ↗