UPI Study › Courses › Principles of Management › Free lessons › Lesson 10.2 Free with a free account
Adapting to the Follower: Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Model
Principles of Management · Chapter 10: Classic Theories and Models of LeadershipSection 10.2 · lesson 56 of 11711 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 Principles of Management.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Principles of Management
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Clearing the Path: The Path-Goal Approach to Leadership →← Fit and Control: Fiedler's Contingency ModelNext lesson: Clearing the Path: The Path-Goal Approach to Leadership →
In this lesson
Match the style to the follower's readiness for the task in front of her.
- Describe the 4 styles of the situational model
- Explain follower readiness and its 2 components
- Match a style to a readiness level
- Apply the model to a described follower and task
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,573 words). Read along, or search it.
Classic Theories and Models of Leadership
Adapting to the Follower: Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Model
Fiedler's model said a leader can't really change her style. This model says she can, and she should. It's the situational leadership model of Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard. We'll see what it means by follower readiness, and why readiness belongs to a task, not a person. We'll lay out the four readiness levels, and the four leadership styles that match them. We'll look closely at the pairing that surprises most new readers. Then we'll cover how the model works over time, and the two errors it helps you avoid. We'll be honest about the evidence behind it. And we'll end with a manager who applied one style to two very different tasks.
The Premise
The Leader Can and Should Change Style
The situational leadership model was developed by Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard. Its premise contrasts directly with Fiedler's model, from Subchapter ten point one. Fiedler treated a leader's orientation as fixed. So the answer was to match the leader to the situation, or to change the situation. Hersey and Blanchard took the opposite view. The leader can, and should, change style. Style is treated as genuinely adjustable. So what decides which style fits? Not any broader situational favorability. It's the follower's readiness, for the specific task at hand.
Readiness
Ability and Willingness
Readiness has two components. Ability covers a follower's knowledge, skill, and experience relevant to the specific task. Willingness covers her confidence, commitment, and motivation to actually carry it out. Now the crucial point. Readiness is task-specific. It's not a label you attach to a person once. The same person can sit at genuinely different readiness levels for different parts of her own job. She can be highly ready for a task she's performed for years. And she can be considerably less ready for one she's just been assigned for the first time. Hold on to that idea. The case at the end of this section turns on it.
Readiness Levels
4 Levels, Least to Most Ready
Combining ability and willingness gives four readiness levels, running from least to most ready. R one describes a follower who is unable, and unwilling or insecure. She lacks the skill for the task, and also lacks the confidence or motivation to attempt it. R two is unable, but willing or confident. She lacks the skill, but genuinely wants to try. R three is able, but unwilling or insecure. She has the skill, but lacks the confidence or motivation to apply it independently. And R four is able, and willing or confident. She has both the skill and the genuine motivation to carry out the task on her own. Notice that readiness doesn't rise in a straight line on both components. Between R two and R three, ability rises while willingness can dip.
The Styles
2 Behavioral Dimensions, 4 Styles
The model crosses two behavioral dimensions to produce four named styles. Task behavior is direction and structure, how much the leader specifies what to do, and how. Relationship behavior is support and encouragement, how much she attends to the follower's confidence and motivation. Telling combines high task behavior with low relationship behavior. It gives clear, specific direction, and fits R one. That follower has neither the skill nor the confidence to proceed otherwise. Selling combines high task with high relationship behavior. The leader still directs clearly, but pairs it with real encouragement. That fits R two, willing but lacking the skill. Participating combines low task with high relationship behavior. The leader steps back from directing, and supports instead. That fits R three, who has the skill but needs confidence. And delegating is low on both. The leader steps back from both, which fits R four, a follower capable and motivated to work independently.
Figure 10.2.1
Styles Plotted, Readiness Matched
Figure ten point two point one plots the four styles against task behavior and relationship behavior. The readiness level each style matches is marked inside its box. Telling sits at high task and low relationship behavior. It matches the least ready follower, at R one. Selling sits at high task and high relationship, matching R two. Participating sits at low task and high relationship, matching R three. And delegating sits at low task and low relationship, matching the most ready follower, at R four. Look at where relationship behavior is highest. It peaks in the middle two styles, selling and participating. Those are exactly the readiness levels where a follower has begun developing, but hasn't yet reached full independence. That's when encouragement does the most work.
The Surprising Pairing
Capable but Unconfident: Support, Not Instruction
The pairing that most often surprises a new reader is participating, matched to R three. Why would a capable follower need less direction, and more support? Because she already has the ability the task requires. More instruction addresses a skill gap she doesn't actually have. What she's missing is on the willingness side. Confidence, or motivation. And here's the trap. Giving further task direction to someone in this position can read as a lack of trust, in skill she's already demonstrated. That can actually undermine the confidence the participating style is meant to build. So a well-meaning leader who keeps instructing a capable but hesitant employee can make the hesitation worse.
Table 10.2.1
One Employee, 4 Readiness Levels
Table ten point two point one shows one employee, assessed across four separate parts of her job. On routine order processing, she has five years' experience. Ability is high, and so is willingness. That's R four, and the right style is delegating. On a recently introduced inventory system, her ability is low, but she's eager to learn. That's R two, which calls for selling. Leading a cross-team meeting is different. She has the skill, but rarely volunteers, because she lacks confidence. That's R three, so the style is participating. And with a wholly unfamiliar reporting tool, both ability and willingness are low. She's unsure, and hesitant. That's R one, which calls for telling. One person, four readiness levels, four different styles. That's what task-specific readiness looks like in practice.
Over Time
Development, and Regression
The model isn't only a diagnostic. It carries a genuine developmental logic. The leader's objective is to move the follower up the readiness levels over time, on a given task. She adjusts her style as capability and confidence grow, rather than applying one fixed style indefinitely. So she shifts from telling, through selling and participating, to delegating, as the follower actually moves from R one toward R four. That makes the model a development tool, not a one-time snapshot. But movement can run the other way, too. That's regression. When readiness falls, the leader needs to move back down a style. That genuinely happens. A new task the follower hasn't met before can do it. So can a setback that damages her confidence, even though her skill remains intact. Or a change of circumstances that alters what the task now requires. Recognizing regression, and adjusting back down, is as much a part of using the model well as recognizing progress.
Mismatches
Abdication and Micromanagement
Two errors follow directly from mismatching style to readiness. The first is delegating to an unready follower. That means applying a low-task, low-relationship style to someone at R one or R two. In substance, that's the abdication covered in Subchapter nine point four as laissez-faire leadership. Responsibility is handed to someone not yet equipped to carry it, dressed in the language of trust. The second error is directing a ready follower. That means applying a high-task, low-relationship telling style to someone at R three or R four. That's micromanagement. It's unwanted direction, imposed on someone who has already shown she doesn't need it. And it can damage exactly the confidence and motivation that made her ready in the first place. Test yourself. A manager hands a complex new project to an employee who's never attempted anything similar, with no direction or support. The project fails. Which error was that? Abdication, because an unready follower was given a delegating style.
The Evidence
Widely Used, Weakly Supported
The evidence behind this model deserves an honest statement, because there's a real tension in it. The model is widely used in practice. It appears extensively in management training and development programs. But empirical support is weak, and inconsistent, across the research that has tested its specific predictions. That gap between popularity and research support is genuine. It shouldn't be resolved in either direction by overstating the evidence. Still, the model keeps real practical value, as a vocabulary for a development conversation. Naming a follower's readiness on a specific task, and naming the style it calls for, gives manager and employee a shared language. They can discuss exactly what support is needed, and why. That value holds whether or not the model's specific predictions survive rigorous testing.
Case Vignette
A Single Style for 2 Very Different Tasks
Here's a composite case, constructed for instruction. Farah managed a mid-level analyst named Owen. Owen had spent three years mastering the team's core reporting process. He'd recently been assigned a new responsibility, leading client-facing presentations. He had never done that before. Farah applied one identical, closely directive style to both parts of his role. She reasoned that consistency was simply good management. On the core reporting work, Owen was genuinely at R four. There, the close direction read as unwelcome micromanagement, and his engagement with that work visibly declined. On the new presentations, Owen was closer to R one or R two. The same directive style was appropriately matched there, and he made steady progress. Farah's mistake was treating Owen as if he had one uniform readiness level across his whole role. Readiness is task-specific. The style that suited his new responsibility undermined his well-established one. Next, Subchapter ten point three turns to path-goal theory. It asks what's actually blocking the follower's path to a valued outcome.
About Principles of Management at UPI Study
Principles of Management (Business 101) is a self-paced online course of 117 video lessons in 17 chapters, from the classical schools and the four management functions to leadership, motivation, change, human resources, strategy and ethics. 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 Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Principles of Management with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Principles of Management 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 Adapting to the Follower: Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Model
What is the Hersey and Blanchard situational leadership model?
What are the four styles of situational leadership?
Why does a capable but unconfident employee need support rather than more instruction?
What mistakes does situational leadership help managers avoid?
About the Principles of Management course
How many college credits is Principles of Management?
How much does Principles of Management cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Principles of Management take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Principles of Management.
117 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →