UPI Study › Courses › Foundations of Leadership › Free lessons › Lesson 6.3 Free with a free account
Leadership in the Wild & Reading the Room
Foundations of Leadership · Chapter 6: Leadership Power, Styles & InfluenceSection 6.3 · lesson 29 of 908 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Foundations of Leadership.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Foundations of Leadership
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Path-Goal Theory: Directive and Supportive Leadership →← The Leadership DNA Test & the Managerial GridNext lesson: Path-Goal Theory: Directive and Supportive Leadership →
In this lesson
Reading follower readiness and situational pressure - and flexing style in response.
- Explain why situational variables matter, via Fiedler
- Describe the four readiness levels, R1 to R4
- Match each readiness level to its leader style
- Evaluate the practical and ethical limits of style-flexing
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,151 words). Read along, or search it.
Leadership Power, Styles & Influence
Leadership in the Wild
The previous section framed leadership as a default style that deserves to be named. This section makes the opposite move. The best leaders cannot be reduced to a single style at all. Because they deliberately change their behaviour as the situation around them shifts. We will look at Hersey and Blanchard's situational leadership model, building on Fiedler's earlier contingency work. Explain it, illustrate it, and then question where it works and where it does not.
The Opposite Move
The Best Leaders Resist a Single Style
Leadership in the wild refers to the messy, unstable, often unpredictable conditions where real leadership actually happens. A startup in crisis. A hospital ward at three in the morning. An infantry platoon under fire. A classroom on the first day of term. And none of those settings rewards a leader who refuses to read the room. Which sets up a genuine tension with the previous section. There, we said knowing your default style matters. Here, we are saying the default is not enough. Both are true. You have to know your default precisely in order to notice when you are defaulting.
Fiedler
The Contingency Model, and Its Provocation
By the late nineteen sixties, leadership researchers had accumulated enough evidence to reach a conclusion. That no single style of leadership was universally effective. Fred Fiedler's contingency model, in nineteen sixty-seven, argued that a leader's natural style produces good results only when it matches the situation. Whether that style is task-oriented, or relationship-oriented. And he defined situational favourability through three variables. Leader-member relations. Task structure. And the leader's position power. But Fiedler made one further claim that was genuinely provocative. That style is relatively fixed. A stable personality feature, rather than a behaviour to be trained. And if that is true, the implication is radical. Organisations should stop trying to retrain leaders. And instead match leaders to situations.
The Response
Hersey and Blanchard Reject the Premise
Hersey and Blanchard rejected that premise. Their nineteen sixty-nine model retained the situational insight. But assumed leaders could, and should, deliberately flex their style. In response to one critical variable. The readiness of their followers. And notice what that assumption changes. It makes situational sensitivity a teachable skill, rather than a hiring problem. Which is precisely why this model, and not Fiedler's, became the backbone of leadership training. Though Fiedler's challenge does survive, in modified form. Many modern leaders find it easier to redesign the situation around them than to change themselves. By changing the team composition. Simplifying the task. Or shifting their reporting line.
The Variable
Readiness = Ability x Willingness
Hersey and Blanchard defined follower readiness as a combination of two things. Ability. Meaning skill, knowledge, and experience with this particular task. And willingness. Meaning motivation, confidence, and commitment. Crossing those two dimensions yields four levels. R1 followers are low on both. They lack the skill, and they lack the confidence to act. R2 followers are still learning the skill, but they are willing. Enthusiastic, and inexperienced. R3 followers have developed the skill, but have lost confidence or commitment. Competent, but uncertain. And R4 followers have both skill and confidence. They are ready to act with minimal supervision. Now here is the point people most often miss about this scale. The same person can occupy different readiness levels on different tasks. A surgeon might be R4 in the operating theatre. And R1 on hospital social media policy. Readiness is a property of the person and the task together. Never of the person alone.
The Match
Four Styles for Four Levels
Each readiness level calls for a different leader style. And the two axes here are task behaviour, meaning how much direction you give. And relationship behaviour, meaning how much support you give. Notice that the four styles occupy four different corners. So moving between them is not a matter of doing more or less. It is a matter of doing something structurally different.
In Detail
What Each Style Does
Take the four styles in turn. S1, telling. High task behaviour, low relationship behaviour. It fits R1 followers, who need clear direction and close supervision. S2, selling. High task, and high relationship. It fits R2 followers, who need both explanation and encouragement. S3, participating. Low task, high relationship. It fits R3 followers, who need confidence-building support rather than instruction. And S4, delegating. Low task, and low relationship. It fits R4 followers, who are ready to be trusted with autonomy. One honest note about the evidence before we go on. The model has real limitations. Its measurement of readiness is simplistic. And the empirical record for its specific style-prescriptions is weak. But those limitations should not obscure its central pedagogical contribution. Which is that leadership is something a leader does to a particular follower, in a particular moment. Not a setting you configure once, and leave.
Case
The Hospital Ward at 3 a.m.
A case that shows all of this operating at once. An intensive care charge nurse manages five other nurses on a night shift. The third-year nurse is an R4 on most procedures. Trusted, and autonomous. The first-year graduate is an R1 on anything involving ventilator escalation. Willing. But unsafe without close direction. When a patient deteriorates at three in the morning, the charge nurse runs both playbooks in parallel. To the graduate, an explicit telling style. Call the registrar now. Draw the gases. Push this dose. Sequenced, and with no ambiguity in it. To the senior nurse, a delegating style. Manage the family. I will come and explain when I am free. The outcome is named. The method is left entirely to them. Now, to an outside observer, that leader's behaviour looks inconsistent. But inside the ward, every nurse knows exactly why they are being led the way they are being led. Which is the difference between inconsistency, and calibration.
The Skill
Reading the Room
Diagnostic skill is what separates the experienced leader from the novice. Reading the room means picking up the cues that signal the current readiness of the people in front of you. The questions they ask. The energy they bring. The speed at which they volunteer. And the texture of their silence. A good leader uses a small set of recurring diagnostics. Asking open questions early. Watching whose voice is missing from the discussion. And checking in privately after a meeting that produced too-quick consensus. That last one is worth dwelling on. Because agreement that arrives fast is usually agreement that was never actually tested. These habits are not soft skills. They are the operational instruments of situational leadership.
Consolidate
The Limits of Flexing
One limit on style-flexing deserves stating clearly, because it has an ethical edge. Adjusting how you lead each person is responsive. That is the model working. But presenting a different set of values or commitments to each person is manipulation. And followers detect that difference considerably faster than leaders expect. The distinction is precise. Flexing changes how much direction and support you give. It does not change what you stand for. Or what you tell people is true. And the claim to carry forward from this section is that readiness is task-specific, and moving. Which means the match is never settled. It is renegotiated every time the work changes, or the person does.
About Foundations of Leadership at UPI Study
Foundations of Leadership (Business 205) is a self-paced online course of 90 video lessons in 12 chapters, from the roots of leadership theory and the trait, situational and transformational approaches to power, decision-making, communication, teams, conflict, diversity and global leadership. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses Every course with PRO →
Compare: Management and leadership courses · Foundations of Leadership vs Leadership and OB
Why take it here
Why students take Foundations of Leadership with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Foundations of Leadership carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Leadership in the Wild & Reading the Room
What is Fiedler's contingency model of leadership?
What are the four follower readiness levels in situational leadership?
What are the criticisms of the Hersey-Blanchard situational leadership model?
What does reading the room mean in leadership?
About the Foundations of Leadership course
How many college credits is Foundations of Leadership?
How much does Foundations of Leadership cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Foundations of Leadership take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Foundations of Leadership.
90 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →