This paper examines two prominent leadership frameworks: the situational approach developed by Blanchard and Hersey, and the Path-Goal theory. It defines each model, outlines the core components of situational leadership—including its five situational elements and adaptive directive and supportive dynamics—and explains the four behavioral styles of the Path-Goal theory. The paper then identifies three key differences between the frameworks, focusing on how each treats follower readiness, motivation, and leader responsibilities. Finally, it explores three substantive similarities, including shared emphasis on flexible leadership styles such as directive and supportive approaches, demonstrating how both models converge on adaptability as a central leadership virtue.
The situational approach, developed by Blanchard and Hersey, rests on the primary premise that varied situations require different leadership styles. According to Blanchard and Hersey, a situation refers to the attitudes and values with which a group of people or individuals must deal — including planned occurrences and the results they embrace — and that a tangible activity is the appropriate response to any given situation. However, situations are complex and consist of five elements (Thompson & Glasø, 2018):
These situational elements shape the constraints a leader faces when implementing a leadership style appropriate to the situation at hand. According to Northouse, situational leadership encompasses both supportive and directive dynamics. For instance, a situationally aware leader recognizes that the motivation and skills of any group member are not static. As a result, the mix of a leader's directive and supportive behaviors must also shift with the situation. A clear example of the situational approach in practice is a sports team that changes regularly as members come and go, causing the team's collective strengths and weaknesses to evolve over time (Thompson & Glasø, 2018).
The Path-Goal theory is a model focused on identifying the leader behavior or style that best fits a particular work environment or set of employees in order to achieve a specific target. It can be described as a framework for how leaders select behaviors that align with employees' work environments and needs, guiding employees along their journey toward achieving their daily work goals (Bans-Akutey, 2021). The model aims to improve employees' satisfaction, motivation, and empowerment so that they become more productive within the organization. Employee satisfaction is closely tied to the leader's performance as both coach and facilitator, including how the leader rewards good performance.
The Path-Goal theory identifies four leadership behaviors: supportive, achievement-oriented, participative, and directive. An example of a Path-Goal leader can be found across various levels of management; Steve Jobs, for instance, has frequently been cited as one such leader (Bans-Akutey, 2021).
Whereas situational leadership addresses the attitudes and capabilities of employees relative to the situation, the Path-Goal theory presents four styles that focus on variances in employee willingness. In situational leadership, the style adopted in a specific situation must depend on follower maturity and readiness. In contrast, the primary focus of the Path-Goal theory is motivation — specifically, what is necessary for followers to achieve their target goals (Bans-Akutey, 2021).
A second difference concerns the basis for leadership adaptation. Situational leadership is grounded in the maturity or readiness of followers — that is, their potential — whereas the Path-Goal theory requires leaders to set clear goals and establish a proper mechanism through which employees can meet those targets. A third distinction relates to the factors that influence leadership behavior. According to situational leadership, leaders are shaped by factors such as employees' confidence in their managers, the leader's influence and authority, and the nature of the work itself. According to the Path-Goal theory, however, good leaders are responsible for providing incentives and support to enable employees to meet their target goals (Thompson & Glasø, 2018).
Both theories share a commitment to flexibility as a core leadership quality. Situational leadership views leadership as a dynamic role that must adapt to the subordinate's stage of development; its flexible leadership styles include supporting, directing, delegating, and coaching (Bans-Akutey, 2021). Similarly, in the Path-Goal theory, a leader must evaluate each situation individually and remain sufficiently flexible to adopt a supportive, directive, or participative orientation depending on the primary needs of subordinates.
A second similarity is the presence of a direct, directive leadership style in both frameworks. Both approaches treat directive leadership as a role in which the leader provides substantial direction while offering relatively little emotional support to subordinates (Thompson & Glasø, 2018). In environments such as the military or construction industry, adherence to clear direction is critical, while emotional support is less central to task completion.
"Shared flexible, directive, and supportive leadership styles"
Thompson, G., & Glasø, L. (2018). Situational leadership theory: A test from a leader-follower congruence approach. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.
You’re 73% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.