| Hersey and Blanchard's (1969) Situational Leadership Theory has been a subject of study in the leadership field for over 30 years. It has been used by the Fortune 500 Companies, the Military Services, church organizations and civic groups, but has not been consistently supported by research. This research studies Situational Leadership in a National Guard infantry Battalion using the instruments that were developed for the theory. Methodology is that along those lines of Vecchio (1987) which has been replicated by several researchers (Norris and Vecchio, 1992; Fernandez, 1994; Cairns, 1996; and Fernandez and Vecchio, 1997) with mixed results. Matching of leadership styles with subordinate maturity is accomplished using a medley of instruments including those developed for Situational Leadership---LEAD and Maturity or Readiness Scales---and performance reports by supervisors. Outcome measures are satisfaction with supervision (measured by the Job Description Index), Satisfaction with The Job (measured by the Job in General Scale) and cohesion (measured by the Organization Climate Survey). Implications of this research are the utility of subordinate and peer input in leadership effectiveness evaluations, and leader development through 360 degree feedback. The results of the research are the same as previous research in that the statistical methods used to include the Omnibus and Partition Tests may not be the appropriate tests to use to test the basic principals of Situational Leadership Theory. Secondary data does indicate an effectiveness organizationally between leadership style (S2) and Readiness (S3) and the outcome measures of performance, satisfaction with the leaders and the job, and unit cohesion. Leaders lack the ability to vary their style as the readiness of subordinates increases to develop subordinate leadership. |
