A test of three basic assumptions of Situational Leadership® II Model and their implications for HRD practitioners

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to test the following three assertions underlying the Situational Leadership® II (SLII) Model: all four leadership styles are received by followers; all four leadership styles are needed by followers; and if there is a fit between the leadership style a follower receives and needs, that follower will demonstrate favorable scores on outcome variables. Design/methodology/approach For the first and second assertions, a proportional breakdown of the four leadership styles observed within a sample of working professionals is presented and discussed. Regarding the third assertion, for ten outcome variables, multiple one-way analyses of variance tested mean differences between followers who experienced leadership style fit (i.e. a fit between received and needed style) and followers who did not experience fit (n = 573). Subscale scores from the Leader Action Profile, the Work Intention Inventory, the Positive and Negative Affect Scale and an adapted form of the Affective/Cognitive trust scale (McAllister, 1995) were used as study measures. Findings Three of the four leadership styles of the SLII framework were reported as frequently received. All four of the leadership styles were reported as needed. This study also found that follower-reported fit between one’s needed and received leadership style at work resulted in more favorable scores on nine of the ten employee outcomes, as compared to follower-reported misfit. Practical implications As human resource development practitioners seek to educate and train their leaders on how to be more effective with their direct reports, this research provides evidence that all four styles are needed and received, although there were lower instances of reporting the S1 style to be needed or received. Also, the findings demonstrated that when followers view a fit exists between the leadership behaviors they need and the leadership behaviors they receive, greater positive job affect, lower negative job affect, increased cognitive and affective trust in the leader and higher levels of favorable employee work intentions were evident. Originality/value This paper builds on the resurgence of studies examining initiating structure and consideration as leader behaviors. This is one of very few recent studies that, by combining initiating structure and consideration, reinvestigates the four leadership styles established by past contingency theories. Specifically, the authors used the SLII framework as a foundation for analysis. Overall, the study supports three of the major assumptions of the SLII framework.

Situational leadership theory: a test from a leader-follower congruence approach

“…It seems that enthusiasm or high commitment occurs with increased competence, and is rare in combination with low competence. The rare occurrence of match is also consistent with findings by Zigarmi and Roberts (2017), who reported that the use of telling leadership style was very infrequent. Also at level 2 (low on competence to having some competence in combination with low commitment), few followers were represented.…”

Leadership behavior: A partial test of the employee work passion model

“…Possible answers range from 6 = almost always to 1 = almost never . Convergent validity relating to the directive and supportive scales of the LAP was established when these scales were correlated with the LBDQ‐XII (Stogdill, ) (see Zigarmi & Roberts, ). In this study, the alpha reliability coefficients for directive behavior and supportive behavior scales were both 0.98 (see Table ).…”

“…Notwithstanding, Judge et al () called for further examination of Consideration and Initiating Structure and a wider range of effectiveness outcomes. Various authors (e.g., Fleishman, ; Meirovich & Gu, ; Zigarmi & Roberts, ) highlighted a need for research on different levels of abstraction of the Ohio State dimensions, that is, behaviors that are inherent in Consideration (e.g., listening, facilitating problem solving) and in Initiating Structure (e.g., goal setting, showing and telling how). Considering HRD practitioners offer leadership development programs that include conceptual models based on Consideration and Initiating Structure, yet several authors have called for further research, we contend that the examination of these fundamental leadership constructs in this study of the contemporary issue of employee work passion is warranted.…”

“…Benson, Zigarmi, and Nimon () found empirical support for positive relations between manager emotional intelligence and supportive behaviors such as listening, asking for input, and providing rationale. Zigarmi and Roberts () reported that fit between leadership styles (i.e., combinations of high and low directive behaviors and supportive behaviors) needed and received, resulted in employee positive affect, increased cognitive and affective trust in leader, and favorable work intentions. Additionally, in a laboratory study, Ehrhart and Klein () found that follower personal characteristics (needs, values, and dispositions) predicted preferences for charismatic (30% of respondents), relationship‐oriented (50% of respondents), and task‐oriented leadership (20% of respondents) with need fulfillment being the dominant characteristic that explained most variance in leader preference.…”

Model Kinerja Pegawai: Kepemimpinan, Budaya Kerja, dan Motivasi Kerja dengan Kepuasan kerja variabel intervening

“…Untuk menanggulangi keadaan ini diperlukan sumber daya yang mampu mengerahkan keahliannya secara maksimal. Namun hal ini sangat dipengaruhi beberapa factor diantaranya kemampuan pemimpin (Zigarmi & Roberts, 2017;Altmäe et al, 2013) untuk mengelola atau mengkoordinasikan bawahan dan menciptakan budaya kerja yang baik (Ahmad;, Samosir, 2018, memotivasi pegawai sehingga mereka puas terhadap apa yang dilakukan yang berakibat pada kinerja (Rahman et al, 2019;Inuwa, 2016).…”