Four Situational Leadership Approaches

In LSSD, to drive home the effective and dynamic practice of leadership, we leverage Situational Leadership pioneered by Hersey and Blanchard. This simple framework has proven to be an excellent way of conveying the most basic aspects of leadership as well subtle nuances. However, as it can be when working with simple tools, it is easy to focus on the “doing” of leadership and lose sight of “being” a leader. Your effectiveness as leader will in large part be determined by your attitude toward your company, your role, your work and your associates. You can “do” all the right things and your underlying sentiments will either compliment or contradict your efforts.

The previous module focused on the first of the elements of the Situational Leadership Framework. This module will address the second element.
• The ability to make helpful distinctions relative to what is going on with your followers.
• The ability to match what is going with ones followers with the most effective leadership process, or approach.

Task vs Relationship Focus
To understand follower Readiness means understanding the interplay of a followers ability and motivation on any given task. To effectively match our Leadership Approach to the followers’ Readiness level means understanding the interplay and application of two distinct areas of focus; Task Focus & Relationship Focus. The bottom half of the slide below shows the differences between these areas of focus.



Situational Leadership helps leaders to understand when and how to apply these two areas of focus to bring out the best in followers. There are a few common traps we see leaders fall into when it comes to applying these areas of focus:
1. Leaders that do a little of both but not enough of either to really make an impact. It’s important that leaders learn how to demonstrate these areas of focus in different degrees of intensity. There times when followers and those around you will appreciate you sending strong, clear and focused signals.
2. Leaders that have a disposition toward one area of focus and or neglect the other. Think about the leader who was most frustrating to work for? Most likely this leader was overdone and overboard on one focus area while not quite balancing it out with the other. Being a leader often means doing things well, even though they may not be your preference or natural strong suite.

The term we use for the leadership approach that is primarily Task focused with little attention to Relationship focus is Directing. Directing is a very effective leadership response when working with followers on activities where they have low ability and are either insecure or unwilling—Readiness Level 1.

The term we use for the leadership approach that is primarily Task and equally Relationship focused is Coaching. Coaching is a very effective leadership response when working with followers on activities where they have low ability and are willing, eager and confident—Readiness Level II.



The term we use for the leadership approach that is primarily Relationship (supportive) focused with little attention to Task focus is Counseling. Counseling is a very effective leadership response when working with followers on activities where they have high ability and are either insecure or unwilling—Readiness Level III. Alternate terms for counseling are; partnering, advising,

The term we use for the leadership approach that is neither very Task focused or Relationship focused is Delegating. Delegating is a very effective leadership response when working with followers on activities where they have high ability and are highly confident, eager and willing—Readiness Level IV.

Follower Readiness.

Leadership as a Dynamic Set of
Practices.

During our Leadership Skill & Style Development (LSSD) program we challenge participants to acknowledge their assumptions and beliefs regarding effective leadership. One question we pose to participants is whether or not they believe effective leadership is a more dynamic or static process? Intuitively everyone acknowledges that effective leadership is a dynamic process that requires leaders to be alert and active in adapting their approach.

Everyone also seems to appreciate that “dynamic” does not mean messy, chaotic, unclear or without purpose.
In LSSD, to drive home the effective and dynamic practice of leadership, we leverage Situational Leadership pioneered by Hersey and Blanchard.

There are two elements to Situational Leadership that must be understand and applied together:
1. The ability to make helpful distinctions relative to what is going on with your followers.
2. The ability to match what is going with one's followers with the most effective leadership process.

The focus of this learning module is on point #1 from above; what is going on with your followers? Through Situational Leadership we learn that not only is leadership a dynamic process but understanding the different levels of Follower Readiness can bring purpose and clarity to the adaptation that leaders must make.

Ability x Motivation = Readiness.
Follower readiness is an assessment of the followers disposition toward each performance expectation they are required to meet. To make this Readiness assessment leaders need to make simple distinctions between the follower's ability and motivation to perform their duties.

Highly ABLE followers have the experience, skills, aptitude, background and knowledge to perform at or above expectations. Followers with low ability have little experience, knowledge, skills, background or demonstrated aptitude for the task(s) at hand.

Highly MOTIVATED followers are interested, eager, willing, confident and feel secure about performing at or above expectations. Followers with low motivation are hesitant, unsure, unwilling and or insecure / anxious about applying themselves to the task(s) at hand.



Leaders need to strengthen and fine tune their ability to make accurate observations of their followers ability and motivation combinations.
In LSSD we use assessment tools to understand and differentiate between the gradations of ability and motivation. No assessment tool can be as precise or useful as healthy two-way dialogue. Periodic discussions with followers about their roles, responsibilities and performance objectives should help you “zero-in” on what is going on with your follower in these two critical areas. Your performance management process should provide you with at least one opportunity to have these critical discussions.

Discerning Readiness requires a leader to be alert and vigilant. The colored sequence of blocks in the slide below depicts how these basic Ability & Motivation distinctions combine to help differentiate between four different Follower Readiness levels; R1, R2, R3, R4.



Each readiness level requires the leader to deliver a different leadership process or approach. This is one tangible reference to the dynamic nature or leadership.

Now, also please remember that each follower may have multiple performance expectations or duties. For each follower there may be several applicable Readiness levels. Multiply this by several followers and you can see why alertness, vigilance and the ability to make Readiness distinctions is so important to effective, dynamic leadership.

Guidelines for Survey Guided Development

Organizational surveys and assessments can be powerful tools for improving employee engagement and organizational effectiveness- or not. No doubt about it, some tools are better than others. However, this is one of those areas where a strong survey guided development process can compensate for a poorly constructed tool AND the perfect tool can be rendered useless by a poorly thought out or administered survey guided development process.

In our consulting work we use organizational effectiveness surveys because they can help assess how well an organization is functioning, how engaged or motivated employees are and any positive or negative trends that may be occurring. I like to initiate a survey guided development process at the beginning of projects to; baseline the organizations effectiveness, raise awareness and desire for change, increase engagement and measure the impact of change throughout transformation projects.

Below are just a few basic guidelines to follow when considering whether and how to make the most of your survey guided development process.

• Decide what you plan to do with the survey data and how you intend to feed it back before administering the survey. Our rule of thumb is to plan of feeding the results to anyone who responded to the survey.
• Survey results should be used for improvement.
• The survey used should be based on some interpretative theory or framework.
• The questions should be actionable.
• The rating scale should be consistent throughout the assessment tool.
• Ensure anonymity for people taking the survey. If using a paper and pencil type of survey, provide respondents with an a envelop they can put the survey in and seal it before handing it in, or a stamped addressed envelope to mail the survey back.
• Employees can take the survey on the organization, department or work group. We encourage “high fidelity” measurement by having employees take the survey on their work group. In this way we can easily provide high level reports as well as provide feedback at the supervisory / work group level.
• The time between taking the survey and feeding back the results should be as short at possible. We like to take no longer than a month to get some aspect of the survey results back to the organization to start the feedback and engagement process.
• The survey results should be fed back to the entire organization, not only the leadership team. Employees generally expect that when asked to take a survey that someone is interested in what they think and that this will lead to change.
• Leaders should be involved in feeding back the survey data to their organizations. While there may be a role for experts or consultants in the feedback process, leaders must be encouraged and prepared to demonstrate active engagement.
• We encourage linking survey results feedback with opportunities for managers and employees to help interpret the data together and collaborate on suggestions for improvement.

I welcome your input and dialogue on the list and if you would like to email me about how to increase employee engagement through the use of survey guided development, please send me a note to ksprock@aol.com.

Solving The Transformation Puzzle.
Transformation requires significant change. The goal of transformation is to achieve substantial competitive advantage and to begin working today toward securing a successful future. Not just a few things must change to transform an enterprise, but many things must change. With many of our clients we help facilitate transformation by developing and aligning initiatives in the areas of Strategy, Lean and Culture change. Much like a three-legged stool, a transformation cannot be achieved through any one focus alone, rather Strategy, Lean and Culture change collectively represent a robust and holistic approach to transformation.

The Pieces. It’s important that each of us understand what the pieces of this transformation puzzle are and how they fit together.
• Strategy. Strategy development is predominately an outward (customers, markets & competition) and future oriented process that results in the definition of future business focus areas and the deployment of long-term goals. For transformation to occur, there must be clear goals, clear intentions and clear focus.
• Lean. Compared to strategy, Lean is a more inwardly focused on an organizations work systems. Becoming Lean means building the capability to work smarter; focusing on customer value, eliminating waste and learning to use space and time (speed) to ones competitive advantage. For transformation to occur leaders must take steps to re-align, change and improve our work processes and methods.
• Culture. Compared to strategy, Culture change is more inwardly focused on an organizations human “systems”; those enduring ways of thinking and behaving at work that characterize “who we are and how we’ve done things”. Culture, unless acted upon, is often shaped slowly by the past. For transformation to occur we must understand and act upon the culture, taking steps to align and change the culture with the future in mind.

The Puzzle. Many organizations spend time and resources to address and hone their strategic viability. Many organizations spend time and resources to work smarter and improve their work systems and processes. Many organizations spend time and resources cultivating a healthy work culture. Yet few organizations achieve transformation because few organizations tie all three elements together.



Strategy without Lean or Culture change results in frustration because the organization has neither the capability or desire to change. Lean without Strategy results in aimless tactical improvements where people take risks to improve processes without meaningful net results for the company or its customers. Lean without Culture change cannot be sustained and often places too much trust in the tools and not enough in the people who do the work— people make change, tools don’t.

We must all remember that transformation does not occur through any one initiative or program. Rather, Strategy, Lean and Culture change efforts should be approached as three integrated and powerfully complimentary approaches to transformation.

I’ve found that many of the tools from the LEAN / Six Sigma toolkit also help clients understand and address some of the more difficult and subjective aspects of organizational change and effectiveness. Creating and using “models” can accelerate understanding and transformation.

One simple and versatile tool has been the SIPOC approach to modeling systems. SIPOC Stands for Supplier, Input, Process, Output and Customer. We use variations of this tool to help clients improve meeting effectiveness, to “block out” major change initiatives and to plan and refine restructuring activities.

In this entry I’ll show why this tool has proven to be an excellent, deliberate and “scientific” approach to model, characterize and improve leadership team functioning. This approach provokes thought, organizes action and takes what is often perceived as a “soft” and “touchy-feely” space and translates it into a more of a science. This translation from art to science is greatly appreciated by many leaders.

I will dedicate a few entries to laying out how SIPOC can be applied to improving leadership team functioning. Through these next several entries, I’ll focus on the IPO parts of the sIPOc modeling approach. If you can't wait for my entries and are intrigued or want to understand this approach more quickly, please contact me.

The graphic below is a notional example of the leadership teaming process with some "place-holder" examples of Inputs, Processes and Outputs. In subsequent entries I’ll highlight, differentiate and clarify each part of the IPO. Over the years we have developed specific tools, processes and interventions that help clients improve every aspect of this model.



Below are some of the leadership team effectiveness issues that this process can help raise, make accessible, organize and address. The best way to tackle this is to work the model backwards, from customers to suppliers.
• Who are the CUSTOMERs / CONSUMERs of our collective leadership? Who depends on our collective effectiveness?
• What OUTPUTs or deliverables are important to these customers / consumers? How would they rank the importance of these deliverables? How would they rate our performance on these deliverables? Do we have critical to customer measures or indicators in place that let us know how well we are performing in these important areas?
• How effective is our teaming PROCESS? Where do we need to improve our process to make the most of our inputs and fulfill our outputs / deliverable effectively.
• What Inputs do we require to perform effectively as a team? Is there a relationship between the quality / clarity of our inputs and our ability to deliver our outputs?

If you are comfortable and think it might be useful, you can use this model to generate discussion and highlight opportunities for improving team functioning. Ask your team; In what elements of this model (pick two or three) are we particularly strong? Ask them to identify some examples or be able to substantiate their selections. Talk it through and discuss. See how universal and shared these perception are. Ask the team and generate discussion around; What must be maintained or continued or in order to maintain these strengths?

Then ask your team; In what elements of this model (pick two or three) are we struggling and need to improve or address? Ask them to identify some examples or be able to substantiate their selections. Talk it through and discuss. See how universal and shared these perception are. Ask the team and generate discussion around the priority and or relationship of these areas and see if and what ideas for improvement emerge.

If your leadership team is facing significant change or transformation it can be useful to develop an "as-is" IPO and then a "to-be" IPO that clarifies what will and must change. Any change or transformation will shift the output requirements of the team. If the outputs change, then so too must either the inputs and or the processing of the team.

When working with leadership teams, we facilitate a dialogue around this approach prior to any sensing or diagnostic work. This facilitated team discussion helps all of us clarify issues and define the issues and outcomes that must be realized through teambuilding.