Using Peer-Reviewed Academic Journal Articles To Support You

Using Peer Reviewed Academic Journal Articles To Support Your Writing

Using peer reviewed academic journal articles to support your writing, complete the following in 4–5 pages: Describe and analyze the Style and Situational approaches to leadership. Compare and contrast the two styles and identify best use case for each of the styles. Describe which approach would be most effective in your current or previous organization. Why would that approach be best? Your final product will be a Word document, approximately 4–5 pages long, utilizing approximately 2–3 academic, peer-reviewed sources Goncalves, M. (2013). Leadership styles: The power to influence others. International Journal of Business and Social Science. 4 (4). (ProQuest document ID) Retrieved from Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R (2013). Transformational-transactional leadership and upward influence: The role of Relative Leader-Member Exchanges (RLMX) and Perceived Organizational Support (POS). Leadership Quarterly, 24 (2), 299. (ProQuest document ID) Retrieved from

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Leadership remains a pivotal element in organizational success, shaping how managers influence their teams and facilitate goal achievement. Among the myriad leadership theories, the Style and Situational approaches stand out for their practical applications and foundational principles. These models provide insights into how leaders can adapt their behaviors to suit different contexts, thereby enhancing effectiveness and fostering organizational culture. This paper aims to describe and analyze the Style and Situational leadership approaches, compare and contrast their core principles, and identify the most suitable application for each. Additionally, it reflects on which leadership style would be most effective in my previous organizational context and rationalizes its appropriateness based on organizational dynamics and employee needs.

Overview of the Style and Situational Leadership Approaches

The Style approach to leadership emphasizes the behavior of leaders, categorizing leadership into distinct styles based on perceived patterns of behavior. Goncalves (2013) identifies three primary leadership styles: autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire. Autocratic leaders make decisions unilaterally, expecting compliance; democratic leaders encourage participation and shared decision-making; and laissez-faire leaders adopt a hands-off approach, granting team members autonomy. This approach centers on a leader’s behavioral tendencies and assumes that effective leaders display consistent traits that influence organizational outcomes.

Conversely, the Situational approach emphasizes flexibility and adaptability, proposing that no single leadership style is universally effective. Epitropaki and Martin (2013) highlight that effective leaders adjust their style based on the maturity and readiness of followers, considering task complexity and situational variables. This model aligns leadership behaviors with followers' competence and motivation, promoting a dynamic interaction between leaders and followers. It underscores that leadership effectiveness depends on the leader's capacity to diagnose situational factors and modify their behavior accordingly.

Comparison and Contrast of the Two Approaches

Both models acknowledge the critical role of leadership behavior but differ fundamentally in their assumptions about flexibility and consistency. The Style approach assumes that certain leadership behaviors are inherently effective across contexts, leading to a more static model where leaders consistently exhibit particular styles. For example, a democratic style may be favored in collaborative environments, whereas an autocratic style might be suitable during crises. Goncalves (2013) emphasizes that the effectiveness of each style depends on contextual factors, but traditional Style models tend to categorize leaders into fixed styles rather than emphasize adaptation.

In contrast, the Situational approach advocates for behavioral flexibility, emphasizing that effective leadership varies depending on situational variables. Epitropaki and Martin (2013) underscore that leaders should assess followers’ readiness levels and tailor their behaviors—ranging from directing and coaching to supporting and delegating—to optimize performance. This dynamic responsiveness facilitates better alignment with followers’ needs and enhances motivation, which is less emphasized in the Style approach.

Another key distinction lies in training and development implications. The Style approach suggests that leadership can be learned via practicing specific behaviors, while the Situational approach emphasizes training leaders in diagnostic skills and adaptability to various contexts. Both approaches, however, recognize the importance of communication, trust, and influence as integral to effective leadership.

Best Use Cases for Each Leadership Style

The effectiveness of the Style approach is most evident in stable, routine, or crisis situations. In environments where tasks are routine or where quick decision-making is crucial—as during emergency response—autocratic or directive styles can be efficient (Goncalves, 2013). For instance, in manufacturing environments with repetitive tasks, a directive leadership style ensures consistency and safety.

The Situational approach excels in dynamic, complex, or innovative settings, where follower competence and motivation vary and require leadership behaviors that adapt accordingly. In creative industries or rapidly changing markets, leaders who can diagnose team needs and modify their approach foster higher motivation and productivity (Epitropaki & Martin, 2013). This flexibility facilitates team development and sustains organizational agility.

In leadership development programs, combining awareness of different styles with situational diagnostic skills can prepare leaders to navigate diverse contexts effectively. For example, project managers in IT firms often utilize a mix of directive and supportive behaviors depending on project phase, team maturity, and task complexity.

Application to My Organizational Context

Reflecting on my previous organization—a mid-sized technology company—the Situational approach would have been most effective. In such an environment, projects often involve diverse teams with varying levels of expertise, motivation, and familiarity with specific technologies. Implementing a flexible leadership approach that adapts to these differences would have enhanced team cohesion and productivity.

For instance, during initial project phases, a directive style might be necessary to establish clear roles and expectations, whereas during later stages, a supportive or delegating style would empower team members and foster innovation. The Situational approach’s adaptability aligns with the organization's dynamic project demands and the varied developmental stages of team members (Epitropaki & Martin, 2013). Such an approach would promote a culture of trust, engagement, and continuous improvement, leading to better project outcomes.

Conversely, rigid adherence to a single style—such as a purely autocratic or democratic approach—could have hampered responsiveness and innovation. An autocratic style might have been useful during critical decision-making moments but detrimental if overused, leading to decreased motivation and creativity. Therefore, the Situational approach offers a practical framework for balancing control and autonomy, essential for organizational agility in technology sectors.

Conclusion

Understanding the differences and applications of the Style and Situational leadership approaches enhances a leader’s capacity to foster organizational success. While the Style approach provides clarity on behavioral tendencies that can be learned and cultivated, the Situational approach emphasizes the importance of adaptability and diagnostic skills tailored to evolving circumstances. In my past organizational experience, a flexible, situational leadership style would have been most advantageous, enabling leaders to respond effectively to diverse team needs and project demands. Adopting such an approach can lead to higher engagement, better decision-making, and improved organizational performance in dynamic environments.

References

• Goncalves, M. (2013). Leadership styles: The power to influence others. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(4). Retrieved from ProQuest database.
• Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2013). Transformational-transactional leadership and upward influence: The role of Relative Leader-Member Exchanges (RLMX) and Perceived Organizational Support (POS). Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), 299–319.
• Bass, B. M. (1995). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. Free Press.
• Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., & Hogg, H. W. (2008). Leadership in teams: A functional approach. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(4), 597–615.
• Yukl, G. (2012). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Pearson.
• Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and Practice (8th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Manual. Mind Garden.
• Graeff, C. L. (1983). The Situational Leadership Theory: A critical appraisal. Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 285–291.
• Antonakis, J., & Day, D. V. (Eds.). (2017). The Nature of Leadership. Sage Publications.
• Blanchard, K., & Hersey, P. (1996). Leadership and the one-minute manager. William Morrow.