Collated with the limitations of the Mannering-normative approaches for the establishment of personal relations in organizations, the inquiries had been dedicated to answer to the following question: can one same leadership style be victorious in all the circumstances? Which are the typical situations that face controlling when leading, and which is optimum style to apply in each one of them? The first recognized conclusions in this line had been of Fred Fielder (1981). For this author the critical variable that define a situation are:
— How much power has the gestion rank?
— How clear are the tasks to develop?
— Which is the degree of acceptance, confidence and availability that collaborators reveal in relation to the head?
The combination of these three variables can produce more or less favorable situations for the leader.
According to Fielder, in the clearly favorable cases (much power, clear tasks and confidence), and in the clearly unfavorable ones (little power, ambiguity in the definition of tasks, little confidence with the collaborators), the most efficient leadership style is for the task and the results.
However, a style guided to the people in the cases will be more productive where the three variables (to be able, task, relation) produce favorable or unfavorable situations moderately In this way this author is the first to underline the idea that does not exist an only better style, ideal leader must develop his prudential capacity to study circumstances and later acting in consequence, without tying it preconceptions.
Without a doubt, the most widely spread out situational model was from Hersey and Blanchard. These authors recognize that the intervening variables that determine a situation are many (organizational culture, requirements of the superiors type of task, risks, confidentiality, etc.).
In the meanwhile, for elaboration of its model they had centered in the “maturity” or “degree of development” of collaborators as the critical variable. In turn, maturity is determined by two equally important aspects: ability technique (skill and knowledge) and interest (motivation and self security of the person in relation to the task)
With these tools they had distinguished 4 levels of development (D1, D2, D3 and D4), namely:
D1: “Enthusiastic Freshmen”: people without experience but that demonstrate high interest.
D2: “Disenchanted Apprentices”: collaborators of little experience and low motivation.
D3: ” Experienced with changeable interest”: trustworthy technical, despite self-safe not fully the same.
D4: “Stars”: experienced compromised.
According to these authors, the majority of the people when they initiate a task functions as “enthusiastic freshmen” (D1) and in the measure in that it elapses the time goes passing for the other levels of development (D2, D3 and D4) in an ascending career in working maturity.
Clearly that exceptions to this rule also exist and involution movements could also be noted.
Situational leader is the one that uses different styles with different people or with one same person at different moments, tasks or aspects of one same task. For this, he needs to develop two basic abilities:
— Diagnosis: to be able to see what occurs with his collaborator(s) in a definitive situation to fix how much ability and interest is present.
— Flexibility: to assume a style of leadership in agreement with the diagnosed situation.
In our company, Escrita de Monografia de base para TCC , we try to apply always the situational leadership, according to our momentary team and our task.
To be able to exert his flexibility, leader will be able to assume four different typical styles, as if he has guided preponderantly to support to the person or good to conduct his behavior for the performance of the task.
- “To order” to the D1: structuralizing the task well, emphasizing the direction on the support to the person
- “To persuade” to the D2: also structuralizing the task directive, but providing support at the same time
- “To support” to the D3: trying to decide the problems of motivation or interest, without necessity to drive too much technically the person.
- “To delegate” to the D4: providing a minimum of direction and support.
The model was and utmost keeps being productive in seminaries for heads and controlling, because anybody believe that after learning the person will remember all the theory, conveniently applying it and to the detail. It results useful to whom having passed by the experience of its learning finishes perfecting his ability to considerate and to value certain aspects of the complex reality superior-collaborators.
