Hi, Friso, and welcome to our conversation. As a student of the
literature, you must know that Hersey and Blanchard have parted ways and
that since their collaboration, each has tried some new things with the SL
model.
Blanchard, in particular, has attempted to adapt the model to the changing
business environment you mention in your query. Specifically, he has
linked the journey over the parabola to the stages of team development as
described by Tuchman. In this context, the role of the "team leader"
changes, following the SL model, as the team develops from the forming
stage to the performing stage (Blanchard has quite typically applied his
own labels to the stages of team development, a maneuver which makes his
model more "proprietary".)
An easy explication of this turn of events is available in video form from
Blanchard. The video title is "Building High Performance Teams".
Students of the SL model will not be surprised to see how glibly Blanchard
applies his model to the more common organizational forms emerging,
whether as "professional bureaucracies" or "adhocracies". In my opinion,
situational leadership emerges from this transformation unchanged: As a
model for organizational diagnosis, superb; as a model for action,
atrocious.
>My name is Friso Wittebol. I am currently engaged in a research project
>for de Baak. I am evaluating the Situational Leadership model by Hersey &
>Blanchard in the Dutch context. One of the things I am trying to do, is to
>develop organizational characteristics in which the model is expected to
>be more applicable.
>
>I would like to have some comments on the following hypotheses:
>
>1.The model is based on a vertical relationship between a boss and his
>subordinate(s). These kinds of relationships are rapidly getting out of
>date. More and more the boss is becoming a manager with no formal
>authority over his (or her!) co-workers. Therefore, the actual value of
>the model is declining.
>
>2.In the more traditional organizational structures, like the simple
>structure and the machine-bureaucracy (according to Mintzberg), the model
>is expected to be more applicable than in organizations which have
>characteristics of a professional bureaucracy or an adhoccracy.
>
>3.An organization should be in the pro-active state (according to Burns &
>Nelson) for the Situational Leadership model to be usefull in all its
>aspects. (In the reactive state one should observe a strong bias towards
>the S1 behaviour, and in the high performing state one should observe a
>bias towards S4 behaviour.)
>
>Since it is almost impossible that I am the only one currently studying
>and evaluating this model, I would like to get in touch with other people
>who know anything about recent developments in this theory.
>
>Although you can always react on my questions in this discussion group,
>you can also use my private e-mail adress: wittebol@noord.bart.nl
>
>I would be most thankful to anyone who reacts on my questions.
>
>Friso Wittebol
--Jack Hirschfeld Isn't it queer? Losing my timing this late in my jack@his.com career? And where are the clowns?
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>