For years, many companies have tried to find the leadership style that is considered the most effective for their business. Some prioritize decisiveness, others emphasize collaboration, while some believe that the greater autonomy given to teams will lead to higher productivity.

However, organizational reality is rarely that simple. A manager who successfully leads one team does not necessarily achieve the same results when leading another team using the same approach. Even within the same department, a method that works effectively for one employee may become a source of frustration for another.

The problem is often not a lack of leadership quality. The mistake frequently made by leaders is assuming that all team members have the same needs. As a result, a leadership approach that was initially effective can gradually become an obstacle because it no longer matches the conditions of the individuals being led.

This is where the concept of situational leadership style becomes relevant. Not because it offers a perfect leadership formula, but because it starts from a more realistic assumption. Team needs are constantly changing, meaning leadership approaches must also adapt to those conditions. Flexibility is not a weakness in leadership. In many cases, it is precisely the source of effectiveness. To understand more about the concept of situational leadership, here is a detailed explanation.

Discover More : M&A (Merger & Akuisisi): Strategi Pertumbuhan atau Jalan Pintas?

Why One Leadership Style Cannot Be Applied to Every Employee

There is a common assumption in management that consistency is a characteristic of a good leader. To some extent, this assumption is correct. Organizations need consistency in values, work standards, and business direction. However, many managers unconsciously extend this principle to the way they lead people. As a result, every team member is treated with the same approach.

This approach may appear fair, but it is not always effective. Imagine two people within the same team. The first employee has only joined the company a few weeks ago and is still learning basic work processes, while the second employee has spent years handling similar projects and understands various operational dynamics that are not written in formal procedures. Providing both with the same level of direction can create new problems.

For new employees, a lack of guidance can lead to mistakes that could have been prevented from the beginning. Meanwhile, for experienced employees, overly detailed instructions are often perceived as a lack of trust and may potentially create internal conflicts. Situations like this frequently occur in growing organizations, where leaders continue using old management patterns even though team complexity has changed.

Interestingly, many conflicts between managers and employees are not actually rooted in competency issues. These conflicts often occur because expectations between both sides are no longer aligned. Managers feel they have provided sufficient support, while employees feel they are being overly controlled. In other cases, managers believe they have given enough freedom, but team members become confused because they are not yet ready to work independently.

This phenomenon became the foundation of the situational leadership theory developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard in the late 1960s. This theory is based on the idea that there is no single leadership style that is effective in every situation. Leaders need to adjust the level of direction and support they provide based on the ability and readiness of individuals to perform specific tasks.

This is the core foundation of the Hersey and Blanchard leadership theory. Leadership effectiveness is not determined by one style considered the best. Instead, it is determined by a leader’s ability to understand the readiness level of the people they lead and adjust their approach according to individual conditions.

Discover More : Mengenal VUCA Sebagai Tantangan dan Strategi dalam Membentuk Kepemimpinan

The 4 Main Styles in Situational Leadership

The situational leadership model divides leadership approaches into four main styles: Directing, Coaching, Supporting, and Delegating. Each style is designed for different situations. It is important to understand that none of these approaches is always superior because their effectiveness depends heavily on the condition of the team members.

Directing

In the Directing stage, leaders provide clear instructions regarding what needs to be done, how it should be done, and when the work should be completed. The main focus is on clarity of instruction and relatively high supervision. This approach is usually effective for team members who are new or lack sufficient experience in performing certain tasks.

The problem occurs when this style is used for too long. Many managers continue providing detailed instructions to employees who are already capable of making decisions independently. Initially, this approach helps maintain work quality. However, over time, it can slow down the organization because almost every decision must go through the same person.

Coaching

When team members’ abilities begin to develop but consistency in results has not yet been established, Coaching is usually the most appropriate approach. At this stage, leaders still provide direction but begin creating more room for discussion. The goal is not only to ensure tasks are completed but also to accelerate learning and competency development.

Many organizations move through this stage too quickly. They assume someone is ready to work independently simply because they have shown good performance several times. In reality, strong competence requires consistency. Removing support too quickly can create risks that could have been avoided.

Supporting

Not every performance issue comes from a lack of ability. In many cases, individuals actually know what needs to be done but lose motivation, confidence, or engagement with their work. When this situation occurs, increasing supervision often does not solve the actual problem.

The Supporting approach focuses on communication, support, and empowerment. Leaders should help remove barriers that affect performance without taking over responsibilities that should be handled by team members themselves. The main focus is not teaching employees how to work, but creating conditions where individuals are willing to provide their best contribution.

Delegating

Among all styles in situational leadership, Delegating may be the most misunderstood. Consider this: when a manager delegates responsibility, they are actually taking a risk. Decisions that were previously under their control are now being carried out by someone else. Therefore, delegation is not only about trust. It is also about readiness.

Ironically, many organizations complain about employees lacking initiative while almost every decision still requires approval from their managers. This situation creates structural dependency. Teams become accustomed to waiting for instructions because they are never given enough space to make decisions independently. In the long term, this limits individual growth as well as organizational capacity.

Therefore, effective delegation does not eliminate supervision. Instead, the focus of supervision changes. Leaders no longer control every activity but ensure that expected outcomes are achieved. This transition often becomes a critical point in building productive team management that can grow without excessive dependence on a single individual.

How to Assess Employee Readiness Before Assigning Tasks

In many organizations, the process of assigning tasks often begins with an overly simple question. Managers usually ask whether someone is capable of completing a particular job. While this question is important, it is not sufficient to determine the right leadership approach.

Someone may have strong technical abilities but may not yet be ready to take on greater responsibility. On the other hand, there are individuals who are highly motivated but still lack the experience needed to perform tasks independently. Therefore, the Hersey and Blanchard situational leadership theory uses the concept of readiness level as the foundation for leadership decisions.

In general, readiness is shaped by two main factors: ability and commitment. Ability relates to the knowledge, skills, and experience possessed by an individual. Commitment relates to motivation, confidence, and willingness to take responsibility for the outcomes of assigned tasks.

The challenge is that these two factors do not always develop in the same direction. A new employee may have very high motivation but limited capability. Meanwhile, a senior employee may have strong expertise but experience a decline in engagement due to exhaustion, internal conflicts, or unclear organizational direction.

This is why assessing employee readiness cannot rely solely on tenure or formal position. Effective leaders are usually more interested in understanding the actual condition of individuals rather than making assumptions based on status. They try to identify who needs more detailed guidance, who needs support, and who is ready to receive greater delegation.

Tips for Transitioning Situational Leadership Styles During Internal Crisis

Internal crises almost always change the way teams operate. Conflicts between departments, leadership transitions, organizational restructuring, or consistently missed targets can transform a previously stable work environment into one filled with uncertainty. In situations like these, employee needs often change much faster than management realizes.

A common mistake is maintaining the same leadership style even when the organizational context has changed. Some leaders continue using a delegative approach even when the team is losing direction. Others suddenly increase control over every team member, including those who have previously demonstrated the ability to work independently. Both responses can potentially create new problems.

During a crisis, the first priority is not finding the perfect leadership style. The first priority is restoring clarity. Teams need to understand what is happening, how decisions will be made, and who is responsible for each aspect of the work. In many cases, temporarily increasing direction and guidance can actually reduce anxiety and uncertainty.

However, crises do not last forever. Once stability begins to return, leaders need to gradually restore participation and autonomy within the team. Many managers successfully take control during emergency situations but fail to release that control once conditions improve. As a result, organizations become trapped in a pattern of micromanagement that limits long-term development.

Closing

Ultimately, the essence of situational leadership style is not about choosing one approach that is considered the most correct. Its greatest value lies in the ability to adapt.

Many organizations do not necessarily lack competent leaders. More often, they lack leaders who are able to change their leadership approach when team needs begin to shift. In a business environment that continues to evolve, this ability often becomes the difference between teams that merely survive and teams that are capable of growing sustainably.

Arghajata Consulting helps companies build more adaptive leadership and team management through approaches tailored to their organizational needs. If your company is facing structural changes, team dynamics, or leadership challenges, discuss your needs with us to identify the right approach.