You Can't Thrive Unless You Survive. So For Now, Just "Do It!"

Thanks to all of the organizational mavens out there, we've got a good conversation going here about leadership.The whole thing started with a post by Dr. Ellen Weber  about the ever-popular control issues. (I would insist that you read her post but then you might accuse me of...well...)

The conversation then moved rather naturally toward the issue of delegation and being in "it" together. That is, effective managers don't delegate and then walk away, thinking that they don't have any further involvement in the outcome.

That brought in highly-experienced leaders and leader developers like Wally Bock, Galba Bright, and Jim Straup whose article on Situational Leadership helps set the stage for today's conversation. 

How Do I Show The (Managerial) Love When the Place is Falling Apart?

We've talked a lot about the "people" factor...how managers and employees can look at what level of direction is needed based on a sense of one's abilities and commitment around a given task or project.

But what about the fundamental health of the organization itself? Shouldn't that impact leadership/management at any given moment?

Galba notes as part of his comment:

"One last idea on situational leadership. . . where one adjusts one's approach to the particular individual. . . there is also a macro level, where one leads according to the organisational situation, without considering the needs, preferences and styles of particular individuals, for example in an organisational crisis or turnaround."

This is what Jim Straup refers to, in part, as examining the terrain in order to accurately assess the situation.

Let's say your company or work group is facing extinction because of competition, over-spending, or some other factor.

What kind of leadership do you want then?

My guess is that you want someone who will accurately size up the situation, do what it takes for short-term survival, and then get people together to figure out how to thrive and move ahead. A "caring" manager (or parent, team coach, etc.) who knows what to do in times of trouble just does it. And people under threat or pressure are thankful for it. Concern for long-term development doesn't really pop into mind when long-term may not be an option.

Another way to think about situational leadership:

1. When your assessment is all about building high performing people in a setting with long-term implications, think development. Pay extra attention to the people diagnostic and appropriate level of direction, coaching, and support.

2. When your assessment says that the life of the organization/work group is threatened, think direction, action, survival. Just do it. Live to fight (work) another day.

I'll bet that there are a lot of stories related to the proper use--and misuse-- of situational leadership.
How about sharing some?

Click on your preferred subscription area at the top of the sidebar on the left. You'll always get the newest post!

Comments

[Jim Stroup]

Hello Steve,

Thank you for your generous reference to my post, and, as always, for your rare ability to attract comment by a wide range of informed people of judgement, and to weave it all together into a narrative that enriches us all.

There is an old movie - "12 o'clock high" - about an American bombing wing based in the UK during WW II, which shows the commander employing distinctly different styles of leadership according to the intersecting requirements of his mission and the needs/capabilities of his juniors.

It is often used to explain the general approach referred to as "situational leadership," which, while generally attributed to a pair of civilian management thinkers who popularized it, was actually developed by the US Air Force and is the cornerstone of their leadership training at all levels.

The key is that the baseline that generates a requirement for leadership is the mission, and the requirement for a particular style(s) of it is the nature of the organization and its members - not of the "leader." Most modern leadership thinking bypasses this, rather obvious, point.

As a result, when there is work to be done, people want "leaders" who are about the work - they rally around meaning and purpose - not personality, even putative "leadership" personality.

Indeed, it should be noted that the Air Force's situational leadership theory implies that there is no single leadership personality - only missions, organizational and human resources, and commanders who must manage the latter to accomplish the former.

Galba Bright's point is telling, by the way, about the macro and micro employment of situational leadership. The key, as he and you also note, is that it is generated and guided by the exigencies of the event - by the terrain and situation.

Thanks again for a great and stimulating conversation!

[Wally Bock]

I've trained police sergeants for years. When a sergeant rolls up on a scene, the first question he or she almost always asks is: "What have we got?" The answer the segeant expects describes the situation, including who's on scene and what has already been done.

In less urgent situations, those same sergeants are analyzing who's working for them, how competent they are on basic tasks, what their career goals are, and determining how to help them develop.

[Steve Roesler]

Yep, Wally.

For years, I've told clients to remember that Prognosis without Diagnosis is Malpractice.

Sounds as if you are helping the sergeants focus on the diagnostic first-step.

[gl hoffman]

Hi Steve...nice to meet you.
For years, I have been interested in leadership methods and ways to teach it. I have concluded one sure fire way is to get involved in startups. And I like Dr Ellen's posts too...

~GL HOFFMAN
JOBDIG
Minneapolis
http://blogs.jobdig.com/wwds
what would dad say