Directive and Supportive Behaviors
Situational Leadership varies in detail
according to the authors. Blanchard (2008) summarized the subject stating there
are four leadership styles (directing, coaching, supporting, delegating) representing
different combinations of directive and supportive behaviors, then he goes into
styles details and their applicability. Northouse (2016, p. 93-103), apart from
covering the behaviors and styles, includes the development levels of followers
in more details than Blanchard (2008). Even if it is called situational
approach, suggesting the situation itself is the main idea, this approach focus
a lot more on the followers. It includes goal achievement and the situation in
general, but the focus behind the theory is the team and its individual whose
will be led. Blake and Mouton (1981) cover Situational Approach as Northouse
(2016) states being the Behavioral Approach (including task and relationship
behaviors). Northouse even mention Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid in his Behavioral
Approach chapter. In this case, it is difficult to define which one is exactly
the Situational and the Behavioral approach, according to credible references.
Based on Blanchard (2008) article regarding to the behaviors and styles
of the Situational Approach, linking with my own life experience (personal and
professional), I can say in my relationship with my fiancée I am high supportive
and low directive since I think a relationship of a couple involves mutual respect
(opinions, feelings, background) and a great amount of support on decisions
taken. In this relationship sphere the direction comes as suggestion. In my
professional environment, I am high directive and low supportive most of the
times (since I lead different teams every day and do not get to know the
individuals well enough, apart from the fact that majority of them has high
school education level and do not have previous experience in the field). It
does not mean I do not support my team and that I do not shift into styles, but
it is just a matter of fact that some situations and flights does not allow me to.
As a cabin supervisor, I need the crew to accomplish their tasks, and in this case,
it is all short-term tasks and outcomes. There are other roles in my job, but its
main role is direct, supervise and provide feedback on a daily basis, then, if
time permits, develop my team member.
The styles highlighted on Blanchard (2008) article are the most
interesting and valuable of his inputs in my opinion, because he mentions when
to apply each style and does not define one being better than another. It all
depends on the situation and the development level of the followers/partners.
Going through these styles I can say I am supporting in my love life,
and in general directing in my work environment. Since my work environment is
very dynamic (constant change of followers, shifts, customer profiles,
situations and time availability) I keep shifting from one style to another.
Blanchard (2008) says in his conclusion that shifting backward and forward in
style makes the Situational Leadership a dynamic developmental model, however
he suggests the dynamism is based strictly on the follower which is not exactly
my case. One sentence that describes my professional
and personal experience and explains the flexibility of my styles is stated by
Northouse (2016, p. 93) when he says that different situation demands different
kinds of leadership, so the leader need to adapt according to the demands of
each situation, and by situation I understand as the overall context and the
followers as individuals.
To illustrate my flexibility, I can describe one situation I have been through
recently, which exemplify my routine as a leader and how I choose my style each
day at work. I spent seven days with the same team members, in a pairing of 5
flights (short, medium and long range). I had the opportunity to know each
individual better than usually I do. The team had people from different nationalities,
including Asians, North Americans, western and eastern Europeans and Middle
Eastern. The back ground mixture itself was a challenge (which with three years
of supervisory experience I already got to understand each culture and know how
to lead them, obviously respecting the individuality of each person which
differs slightly most of the times), however the greatest challenge is that each
person had different motivations, competence and technical skills, different
professional and personal history, and consequently different approach and
reaction to others’ approach.
Going into details, I had two crew members who were very active, hands
on, organized and with serious posture. Noticing one of them in the first hour
of the flight, I delegated the kitchen (galley) and allowed him to be
responsible only for that. To make it possible I went in the cabin to replace
him. No guidance was given at all except for doubts approached by him. In this particular
case, I applied the delegating style (the support was not ignored but was left
for the end of each journey, simply praising him in public and private and documenting
his strengths to his manager). The second crew member I needed more time to figure
out his competences and motivation since he was reserved and quitter. I needed also
to increase my observation skills to figure out his abilities and then delegate
the same task. For him the same style was used as previously, with the same
supporting level and approaches. Both of them knew what to do, and I just asked
if they were willing to take that responsibility. With so, there willing level
increased since they clearly preferred that task and appreciated my trust. As a
consequence they did it very well, honestly better than me, in standards,
organization, and time manner.
There was third crew member who was clearly very skilled but lacked the
will to go an extra mile. She was the type with high skill and low will, so in
this case I chose the supporting style, engaging in conversations, personal chats
and finally figured out why she was lacking in motivation. With her I directed
only when needed and I had shown trust on her competences and respect of her
space and maturity level. A fourth crew member looked mature but I noticed something
was wrong, she spent enough time in the company to know her job very, but for
some reason she had a vague look and was neglecting small details of her
duties. Therefore, I decided to work closely to observe her better and have the
chance to understand the reason behind her behavior, and then knowing which
leadership style I would apply with her. Finally, I found out she had broken up
with her boyfriend hours before the flight so her will (short term at least)
was very low and her skill temporarily affected. A coaching style was the one I
used, which worked perfectly and got the best outcome from her.
Then there were two crew members who recently joined the company, with high
motivation but still learning the tasks. They were different though, however
the directing style was chosen to lead them (shifting sometimes to coaching
style to keep them high motivated and avoid the paternalism style).
Consistently, I like to make my team members feel I trust them and genuine
mistakes are acceptable, so with that I gain honesty from the followers and
have the chance to recover the mistake (service, safety, security).
One curious fact regarding to the last crew members I mentioned, one of
them approached in the end of the fifth sector to ask me for feedback. We spent
half hour talking, in a two-way communication. During the conversation, he
confessed that he felt intimidated by the other supervisor and start doubting
his ability and capability for the job. We had a long chat regarding to his strengths
and developing points, and how to deal with several types of leaders, how to
keep motivated and work on his self-confidence. It was a great learning
experience for me and I believe for both of us. The feedback was a perfect example
which I found myself constantly shifting from directing to coaching, from one
minute to another, back and forth.
This flight was a typical illustration of how I chose my leadership
style in a daily basis and which variables I take in consideration to do so. Thinking
through the experienced mentioned, I realized that the choices of leadership
styles comes automatically to me. I described case by case, follower by
follower, and what I took in consideration to make my choice, but this detailed
process does not happen in practice consciously. It is natural for me, as a subconscious
action, which happens involuntary and most of the times in a matter of seconds.
This self-reflection helped me to understand the theory behind my practices.
Considering the theory mentioned linked with my experiences, I conclude
that the Situational Approach is a great tool to leadership. I define it as a
tool because of its prescriptive nature (Northouse, 2016, p. 99) and not
descriptive. It is flexible, adaptive and it considers context and individuals
involved (leaders/follower, partners). In my opinion, holistic perspective is
crucial for the process of leadership and the Situational Approach, while using
theory engaged into practice, scrutinize it, indeed!
REFERENCES
Blake, R.R., Mouton, J.S. (1981).
Management by Grid Principles or Situationalism: Which? Group & Organizational Studies,
6(4), 439-455.
Blanchard,
K. (2008). Situational leadership. Leadership
Excellence, 25(5), 19.
Northouse,
P. G. (2016). Leadership: theory and practice. (7th edition).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
