USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Respond to each post.
150-200 words per response.
Include 2 reference’s in each response
Post #1
The challenge: Employees had five different managers past twelve months. Every three months employees had a new manager which cause low morale, motivation and disinterest on their job. Also, the employees never learned their job, and no disciplinary actions were ever taking against them for low performance or anything.
From the SLII current employees fall under D2 Low to Some Competence and Low commitment. According to the situation and employees abilities, I need to be utilizing leader style (S1,S2), because of the development stage of them, “D2 as having developed some competence, but having low commitment.” ( Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Nelson, p 27).” While the current employees do have the ability to learned, however, they do not have the commitment and desire to make changes due to the amount of turnover of managers, I would need to be S1 and S2, “Leader focuses communication on goal achievement and spends a smaller amount of time using supportive behaviors (Northouse, p 94). I believe to extend the style is effective by using S1, until the employees learned their job.
In order to be more effective leader, I can moved from S1 to S3 allowing for employees to make decision and feedback on problems or issues in order to make them feel part of the team, “Gives followers control of day-to-day decision but remain available to facilitate problem solving (Northouse, p 95).” I can move to different style with time so they can work on their own with very little supervision. The model does help me to understand that I don’t have to stay on one style, and leader and manager should move from one level of the model to another as employee’s progress.
Reference:
–
Blanchard, K.H., Zigarmi, D., & Nelson, R.B. (1993). Situational leadership after 25 years: A retrospective. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 1(1), 22 – 35.
– Northhouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership, Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks SAGE.
Post #2
Situational approach applies to the relationship between leaders and followers, from directing to delegating (leadership) and from developing to developed (follower). This approach “demands that leaders match their style to the competence and commitment of the followers” (Northouse, 2016). One of my challenges included; team building. As a new member of the command and been task to lead a new team through a deployment, I was very much intimidated and was not sure if I could get the job done. On the development continuum, I had a mixture; for example, my leading aviation electricians mate, electronic technician, and Aviation structure mechanic were highly effective, this was their second deployment at the command. They were experienced and motivated which will put them at a D4 (having a high degree of competence and a high degree of commitment), they were my go-to guys, and I delegated the majority of the task using S4 (low supportive and low directive) leadership style. The rest of the team members were D1 ( Low competence and high commitment), which prompted the use of S1 ( highly directive and low supportive) leadership style. I will add that I became a follower at times, learning from team members the technical side of the new aircraft. In retrospect, this challenge allowed me to grow as a leader and more importantly as a person.
Blanchard, K.H., Zigarmi, D., & Nelson, R.B. (1993). Situational leadership after 25 years: A retrospective. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 1(1), 22 – 35.
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc
Post #3
During my tour onboard USS HARRY S TRUMAN I had quite a few leadership challenges while serving as the Senior Navy Counselor. There was a period of time from February 2014 to July 2015 where I had to deal with several issues with a subordinate while my office was undermanned. This was a huge challenge for me because his predecessor was a highly reliable follower who I could trust and count on as we took on the daily task of leading, training, and managing our team of 120 Sailors responsible for the career development of the 2900 Sailors onboard. I should have had two subordinates who were responsible for training the team, tracking reports, enforcing deadlines, and routing all work to me for approval but during my time as the Senior Counselor I only had one person serving that position. Due to that fact, I had to be more hands-on with the daily work that came into our office and partnered with my subordinate. This dynamic worked really well with my superstar follower and our teamwork led to our command being recognized as the best career development program out of all carriers on the waterfront. Her replacement, however, was extremely incompetent and unmotivated. I knew this fact before he reported to the command and approached our relationship with an open-mind and a willingness to give him a chance at fresh start. After trying various strategies to help him, our work relationship ended after 18 months due to numerous instances of negligence and he was administratively separated from the Navy.
The follower in my leadership challenge fell in the D2 level (low to some competence and low commitment) continuum of the Situational Leadership II model and the leadership style that is most appropriate is the S2 level (coaching; high directive and high supportive behavior).
After completing the survey, the conclusion is my preferred leadership style, S-2 coaching, is most effective for this situation.
