Constructing visions: theory and practice

¶ … personal vision of leadership could best be described as one of 'situational' leadership. I believe that leadership must be suited to the needs of the task at hand and also to the needs of the organization, including its human needs. My leadership vision is flexible, dynamic and ever-changing. One leadership theory that has always resonated with me is that of Hershey-Blanchard Situational leadership theory. According to this conception of leadership, leadership is not a 'cookie cutter' formula that can be applied to all persons indiscriminately. There are four basic methods of leadership, all of which have valid applications. With the leadership style of 'telling,' leaders "tell their people exactly what to do, and how to do it;" with 'selling,' "leaders 'sell' their message to get the team on board;" with 'participating' leadership "leaders focus more on the relationship and less on direction;" and finally 'delegating' leadership is when "leaders pass most of the responsibility onto the follower or group. The leaders still monitor progress, but they're less involved in decisions" (Hershey-Blanchard situational leadership theory, 2013, Mind Tools).

In decisions involving persons such as interns who know little about what they are doing or who are very unmotivated or with tasks that require relatively little finesse, a telling style may be more appropriate. However, in workplaces where workers may be equally untrained, but far more motivated, a 'selling' approach may work best. In another workplace, where the leader can benefit from the expertise of followers, a participatory style may be beneficial. And in some instances, when the leader may actually have less actual expertise than members of a team, delegating is preferred.

In the 'real world,' I believe this eclectic, situational strategy is always required when leading a team. Yes, a company may have many fine slogans about always listening to its employees. But sometimes, in the day-to-day grind of a business, particularly when workers have minimal training, are very young, or are frankly underpaid, a manager may feel forced to use a 'telling' approach. I can remember this from my first job in a fast food restaurant. I do believe that 'telling' is rarely an ideal, which is why the 'selling' approach is best, if workers at least have some intrinsic motivation to do a good job, even if they do not know what that good job may entail.

Both the telling and the selling approaches to leadership assume that the leader has more knowledge than the workers. But that might not always be the case. A manager of a sales team may benefit from a participatory approach, because the sales staff has actual day-to-day knowledge of what the customers want: they are motivated by commission and also have insight which must inform the directions of the leader for the leadership to be effective. And finally, in the case of a general manager overseeing a team of technical workers or workers that have more knowledge of the project than him or herself, delegation might be best.

The different combinations of leadership strategies will depend on the type of the organization in question; the relationship of managers to employees; and the objectives of the leadership. In general, I would prefer to be part of a company that emphasized more participatory and delegative approaches. This no doubt comes from the values I was brought up with: I want to work hard and to do a good job, but I like to feel as if I have a hand in orchestrating the success of the enterprise of which I am a part. I believe I have something valuable to contribute to the organization and to me a job is never 'just a job.' Leadership is most effective when people love their work and feel genuinely motivated to complete it. However, I acknowledge that my preferred methods of leadership are not universally appropriate. Motivated workers that are unsure of how their tasks fit into the larger organization or who are unsure of their duties because organizational changes may benefit more from a 'selling' approach. What I like about situational leadership theory is its non-dogmatic quality. It is pragmatic in that it emphasizes that the manger does 'what works' and not merely what a formula dictates, but it also provides guidance and is not completely relativistic in nature.