Leadership & Organization Development Journal

Emerald Article: Technical note: a study of Hersey and Blanchard's situational leadership theory Thomas D. Cairns, John Hollenback, Robert C. Preziosi, William A. Snow
Article information:
To cite this document: Thomas D. Cairns, John Hollenback, Robert C. Preziosi, William A. Snow, (1998),"Technical note: a study of Hersey and Blanchard's situational leadership theory", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 19 Iss: 2 pp. 113 - 116 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437739810208692 Downloaded on: 01-04-2012 References: This document contains references to 8 other documents Citations: This document has been cited by 3 other documents To copy this document: [email protected] This document has been downloaded 5662 times. Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by ROBERT GORDON UNIVERSITY For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download. [ 113 ]
Leadership & Organization Development Journal 19/2 [1998] 113116 MCB University Press [ISSN 0143-7739]

Technical note: a study of Hersey and Blanchards situational leadership theory

Thomas D. Cairns NBC Television Station Division, Yardley, PA, USA John Hollenback GE Corporate Human Resources, Fairfield, CT, USA Robert C. Preziosi Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA William A. Snow California School of Psychology, Marina Del Ray, CA, USA
This study empirically tested Hersey and Blanchards situational leadership theory (SLT) among 151 senior executives within service and

manufacturing businesses of a large Fortune 100 company. SLT focuses on the interaction of the leaders behaviour and follower readiness to determine leader effectiveness. SLT suggests that the appropriate level of task and relationship behaviour is the one that matches the level of follower readiness. A variety of statistical techniques were used to test the central hypotheses of SLT and the matching concept. The study produced 18 matches and 126 mismatches. One statistical technique, the partitioned test, was found to provide the most insight about SLT and the concept of matching. The researchers recommend its utilization in future research of SLT. The researchers conclude that SLT remains intuitively appealing and empirically contradictory. The concepts of SLT and matching are engaging and further research is recommended.

Background
Situational leadership theory (SLT) focuses on the interaction of the leaders behaviour and follower readiness and then measures it to determine leader effectiveness. This study of SLT was conducted in an actual business environment in contrast to a great deal of previous leadership research that focused on an academic laboratory setting (Kets de Vries et al., 1994). The study consisted of senior level leaders and followers in service and manufacturing businesses of a large Fortune 100 company.

Hersey and Blanchard situational leadership theory (SLT)

The basic assumption of SLT is that leader task and relationship behaviours are moderated by the level of follower readiness (Blank et al., 1990, p. 580). The appropriate amount of leader task and relationship behaviour is determined by the level of follower readiness. As the level of follower readiness changes the amount of leader task and relationship behaviour should change to match the level of follower readiness. According to Blank et al. (1990) as leader task and relationship behaviours match follower readiness the effectiveness of this behaviour will be manifested in follower performance and satisfaction with the leader (p. 584). Therefore, an appropriate test of SLT would be to examine matches of leader task and relationship behaviour and follower readiness in different types of organizations and at different levels within the organization (Norris and Vecchio, 1992, p. 333). A greater

understanding of matches would validate the theory and contribute to the understanding of situational leadership behaviour.

Research domain, instrumentation and statistical techniques

Survey data were collected from 151 senior level employees that resulted in a minimum of 138 usable responses. The senior level executives were employed in different types of organizations within a major Fortune 100 corporation. This target population has not been the subject of previous study. Any cogent study requires utilizing a reliable diagnostic instrument. Therefore, the researchers determined that modified portions of the leader behaviour development questionnaire-form XII developed by Hemphill and Coons (1957) was appropriate to measure the two central elements of leadership. This instrument has been used in previous leadership research. The following statistical techniques were used to test Hersey and Blanchards SLT (Hersey and Blanchard, 1969, 1988). The first technique was a hierarchical regression analysis with analysis of variance (F test) on the independent variables (initiating structure, consideration and follower readiness) and examination of the significance of these three variables on the performance criterion to test the central tenants of Hersey and Blanchards SLT. The second technique was to identify and conduct an omnibus test (means, standard deviation, F-ratio and p < 0.01) of the criteria based on matched and mismatched subgroupings. The matched and mismatched groupings were determined by trichotomizing follower readiness into low, moderate and high readiness levels. The dimension of structuring was also trichotomized into low, moderate and high structuring and consideration was dichotomized. The moderate level for follower readiness coincides with the moderate level of structuring and high consideration. Survey respondents whose values were aligned with the prescribed levels of structuring and consideration were determined as matched and the remaining respondents were determined to be mismatched. The study produced a small number of matches (18) and a large number of mismatches (126). The third statistical technique was to compare the matched and mismatched groupings within the follower readiness level (low, [ 114 ]
Thomas D. Cairns, John Hollenback, Robert C. Preziosi and William A. Snow Technical note: a study of Hersey and Blanchards situational leadership theory Leadership & Organization Development Journal 19/2 [1998] 113116

moderate and high). This analysis was designed to control for the possibility that

nonuniformity may exist across criteria levels (Norris and Vecchio, 1992).

Zero-order correlations
Zero-order correlations were first calculated among the independent variables (predictors) and dependent variables (criteria). The results of the correlation alphas are displayed on the diagonal line of Table I and they reveal significant correlation (0.87 to 0.92) coefficients that the observed independent variables are consistent with each other. Table II shows the results of the hierarchical regression analysis with analysis on variance (F test) on the independent variables (initiating structure, consideration and follower readiness) and the resultant examination of the significance of these three variables on the performance criteria. The results reveal no statistical support for a three-way interaction. The results of the omnibus test are presented in Table III and reveal no statistical differences at the alpha (p < 0.01) level. The results of the partitioned tests are displayed in Table IV and indicate statistical differences at the high readiness level. Yet, the mean differences are in the opposite direction of SLT. However, the mean differences at the low readiness level are in the direction of SLT. This finding is similar to the research produced by Norris and Vecchio (1992) and will be the subject of further discussion.

Matching and the power of the partitioned test

The results of the present study provided more understanding about SLT and the concept of matching. Matching is the amount of leader task and relational behaviour that matches the level of follower readiness. SLT states that leader and follower matches should result in higher levels of employee satisfaction and performance. The omnibus test confirmed that matches did exist thus, giving partial support for SLT. However, the most significant insights on the concept of matching were obtained by conducting the partitioned test developed by Vecchio (1987). The results of the partitioned test showed the mean differences for performance and satisfaction for the low and moderate readiness levels to be in conformity with SLT. However, the mean differences were not statistically significant although, at the moderate readiness level the mean differences were approaching significance (p < 0.01). Although the statistical differences for performance and satisfaction at the high readiness level were in the opposite direction than SLT, the finding is not unique to the present study. Similar findings were reported by Norris and Vecchio (1992) and Vecchio (1987). The similarity of the findings in the present study and those of Norris and Vecchio (1992)

and Vecchio (1987) should not be overlooked for it suggests that the partitioned test is more sensitive to the interaction of the SLT variables. The similarity of the results of the partitioned test for the individuals at the high readiness level with those of Norris and Vecchio (1992) provides support for Vecchios (1987) proposition that SLT appears to be unable to predict for high-maturity employees (Vecchio, 1987, p. 450). However, perhaps it is not the inability of SLT to predict at the high readiness level as much as it suggests that leadership still matters for individuals at this degree of follower readiness. Contrary to the results at the high readiness level, the mean differences for the low and moderate readiness levels are in the predicted direction of SLT and even though they are not statistically significant they are going in the right direction. This adds partial support to SLT. Table I Correlation findings Variable Mean SD Range n 1 2 3 4 5 1. Structuring 21.57 4.74 6-30 143 0.90 2. Consideration 21.96 4.80 6-30 142 0.74a 0.92 3. Readiness 17.05 2.19 10-20 151 0.39a 0.38a 0.87 4. Performance 3.61 1.21 1-5 148 0.52a 0.39a 0.27a 5. Satisfaction with leader 7.43 1.79 2-10 141 0.85a 0.81a 0.42a 0.52a 0.88 Note: a p < 0.01 [ 115 ]
Thomas D. Cairns, John Hollenback, Robert C. Preziosi and William A. Snow Technical note: a study of Hersey and Blanchards situational leadership theory Leadership & Organization Development Journal 19/2 [1998] 113116

Present study contrasted with other research studies

Since Vecchio (1987) suggested that SLT should be studied with an across-jobs perspective and that high levels of follower readiness may obviate the need for supervision rather than specifying a particular style of supervision (Vecchio, 1987, p. 450) the present study provided a valid setting to test these assumptions. The results of the present study indicated that over 80 per cent of the respondents were at the moderate or high readiness level. For follower readiness level to obviate the need for supervision the researchers would expect to find significant mean differences at the moderate and high readiness levels that are in the opposite direction of SLT. The mean differences for performance and satisfaction should be greater for mismatches at the moderate and high readiness levels as SLT advocates that the leader use moderate amounts of structure and high levels of considerations at the moderate level and low amounts of structure and consideration at the high readiness

level. The results of the partitioned test indicate that there are significant mean differences for mismatches at the high readiness level, but not at the moderate readiness level. Since the results are mixed it is not conclusive that higher levels of follower readiness moderate the need for supervision as suggested by Vecchio (1987). However, the results are engaging and further research is recommended. In their study of SLT Goodson et al. (1989) concluded that all followers, regardless of their readiness level, may need large amounts of consideration. They inferred that at least one element of leadership behaviour may be best and that was high relationship behaviour on the part of the leader. For high relationship behaviour to be determined as a leadership behaviour that was best the researchers would expect to find significant mean differences at the moderate readiness levels that are in agreement with SLT. The mean differences for performance and satisfaction should be greater for matches at the moderate readiness level since SLT advocates that the leader use high amounts of consideration. Thus, matches with greater means at the moderate readiness level would support Goodson et al.s (1989) hypothesis. The mean differences at the moderate readiness level for matches provides modest support for Goodson et al.s (1989) hypothesis. The results of the partitioned test in the present study show that for followers at the moderate readiness level there are mean differences for performance and satisfaction that are in the direction of SLT and are approaching statistical significance (p < 0.01). Leaders at the moderate level are thought to display a higher amount of relationship behaviour and the findings in the present study provided partial support for this aspect of SLT and further research is recommended. Table II Summary of regression analyses Performance Satisfaction Source R2 R2 R2 R2 Consideration (C), structuring (S), readiness C S, C R, S R 0.307 0.307 0.796 0.796 C S R 0.313 0.007 0.797 0.001 Note: p < 0.01 Table III Results of omnibus tests Group Mean SD n F p Performance Match 3.33 1.41 18 0.49 0.48 Mismatch 3.56 1.29 126 Leader Match 6.83 2.04 18 1.6 0.20 Mismatch 7.43 1.82 126 Table IV Results of partitioned tests Group Mean SD n F p Low readiness level Performance Match 5.00 1 3.66 0.07 Mismatch 3.05 1.00 22

Leader satisfaction Match 9.00 1 4.30 0.05 Mismatch 5.81 1.50 22 Moderate readiness level Performance Match 4.00 1.00 9 1.89 0.17 Mismatch 3.43 1.15 46 Leader satisfaction Match 8.22 0.44 9 3.43 0.07 Mismatch 7.20 1.63 45 High readiness level Performance Match 2.38 1.30 8 15.46 0.0002 Mismatch 4.09 1.13 53 Leader satisfaction Match 5.00 1.69 8 53.62 0.0000 Mismatch 8.53 1.20 53 [ 116 ]
Thomas D. Cairns, John Hollenback, Robert C. Preziosi and William A. Snow Technical note: a study of Hersey and Blanchards situational leadership theory Leadership & Organization Development Journal 19/2 [1998] 113116

Conclusion
The present study provided very little support for SLT. However, the study did produce modest insights into the interactions of SLT variables.

References
Blank, W., Weitzel, J.R. and Green, S.G. (1990), A test of the situational leadership theory, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 579-97. Goodson, J.R., McGee, G.W. and Cashman, J.F. (1989), Situational leadership theory: a test of leadership prescriptions, Group and Organizational Studies, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 446-61. Hemphill, J.K. and Coons, A. (1957), Leader behaviour development questionnaire-form XII, in Stogdill, R.M. and Coons, A.E. (Eds), Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement, Bureau of Business Research Monograph 88, Ohio State University, Columbus. Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1969), Life cycle theory of leadership: is there a best style of leadership?, Training and Development Journal, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 26-34. Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1988), Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources (5th ed.), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Kets de Vries, M.F.R., Loper, M. and Doyle, J. (1994), The leadership mystique, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 73-92. Norris, W.R. and Vecchio, R.P. (1992), Situational leadership theory, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 331-42. Vecchio, R.P. (1987), Situational leadership theory: an examination of a prescriptive theory, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 444-51.