Imagine a sergeant supervising two officers. The first officer graduated from the academy a few weeks ago. He is enthusiastic, motivated and eager to prove himself. He volunteers for assignments, asks questions and wants to do a good job. Unfortunately, he still struggles with report writing, interviewing witnesses and making decisions under pressure.

The second officer has 20 years of experience. She knows the job inside and out. She can handle nearly any call for service, mentors younger officers and rarely needs supervision. Recently, however, she has become frustrated with organizational changes and openly questions new initiatives.

Now ask yourself a simple question: Should both officers be led in the same way?

Many supervisors unintentionally answer “Yes,” because they want to be fair. They develop a preferred leadership style and apply it to everyone they supervise. When it works, they assume they are leading effectively. When it fails, they often blame the employee rather than reconsidering their approach.

The reality is that officers are not all equal in their competencies, confidence or commitment. As a result, a one-size-fits-all leadership approach is rarely the most effective way to lead.

That is where the Situational Leadership Approach comes in. Developed by Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard, the model is built on a simple idea: effective leadership depends on the situation, not the leader’s preferred style. In plain terms, situational leadership asks a better question than “What kind of leader am I?” It asks, “What does this person need from me right now?”

How it works

Situational leadership is built on two leadership behaviors: directive behavior and supportive behavior. Directive behavior provides structure. It includes setting expectations, explaining tasks, defining responsibilities and monitoring performance. Supportive behavior focuses on relationships. It involves listening, encouraging, coaching and involving people in decisions when appropriate.

The leader’s responsibility is to match those behaviors to the follower’s development level. Development is shaped by two factors: competence and commitment. Competence refers to the knowledge and skills needed to perform a task successfully. Commitment reflects confidence, motivation and willingness to perform the task.

A simple way to remember the model is through two questions:

1. Can this person do the task?
2. Will this person do the task?

The first question measures competence. The second measures commitment. Those two questions are often enough to identify the leadership response needed. The goal is not to place people into permanent categories. Instead, leaders must continually assess the situation and adapt their approach.

What supervisors typically hear

One of the easiest ways to identify an officer’s development level is to listen carefully to what they say. While every person is different, certain phrases often reveal whether an officer needs direction, coaching, support or delegation.

Low competence, high commitment officers are enthusiastic but inexperienced. You might hear:

• “I’ve never done that before. How should I handle it?”
• “Can you look over this report before I submit it?”
• “I want to do it right. What do you recommend?”
• “Can you walk me through that again?”

The motivation is there. The confidence and experience are still developing. These officers typically need direction, structure and feedback.

Some competence, uneven commitment officers have gained experience but are not always confident in their abilities. You might hear:

• “I think I know what to do, but I’m not completely sure.”
• “What would you do in this situation?”
• “I handled it this way. Was that the right call?”
• “Maybe someone else would be better at this.”

These officers often benefit from coaching, encouragement and opportunities to build confidence through successful experiences.

Most supervisors have encountered high competence, variable commitment officers. They know the job well but have become frustrated, cynical or disengaged. You might hear:

• “That’s not how we used to do it.”
• “Nobody asked us before making this change.”
• “I’ve seen this before. It’ll never work.”
• “What’s the point? They’ll just change it again next year.”

Additional training is unlikely to solve the problem because the issue is not competence. The issue is commitment. These officers often need support, involvement and a chance to be heard.

High competence, high commitment officers are confident, capable and self-motivated. You might hear:

• “I’ve got it.”
• “I’ll take care of it.”
• “I’ll let you know if I run into any issues.”
• “Here’s the solution I recommend.”

These officers typically need autonomy rather than supervision. The best leaders provide resources, remove obstacles and trust them to perform.

The best leaders are the ones who can adapt their approach to what their officer needs at the time.

Strengths and limitations

The appeal of situational leadership is not difficult to understand. It is practical, flexible and easy to apply.

One strength is that it recognizes an important reality: different people need different things from their leaders. A recruit, a field training officer and a veteran officer may all require different leadership approaches despite working within the same organization.

Another strength is that it encourages leaders to focus on development. Leadership is not simply about getting through today’s shift. It is about helping people become more capable, confident and independent over time.

However, situational leadership is not without challenges.

The first challenge is accurately assessing competence and commitment. A supervisor may assume an employee lacks motivation when the real issue is fatigue, burnout, personal stress or disagreement with a decision. If the diagnosis is wrong, the leadership response will likely be wrong as well.

In addition, people rarely fit neatly into categories. An officer may demonstrate high competence in one area and low competence in another. Likewise, commitment can fluctuate based on assignments, organizational climate and personal circumstances.

Like most leadership models, situational leadership works best when leaders use good judgment rather than treating it as a rigid formula.

Case example

Chief Ramirez had recently implemented a stricter vehicle pursuit policy. The goal was straightforward: reduce unnecessary risk, limit liability and align departmental practices with current best practices.

Most officers adjusted without much resistance. One field training officer, Mike Anderson, did not. Anderson had served with the department for more than 20 years. He had trained younger officers, handled countless critical incidents and earned a reputation as a highly competent street officer.

During roll call, Anderson frequently voiced concerns about the new policy. He argued that officers might become too hesitant during rapidly evolving incidents and lose opportunities to apprehend dangerous offenders.

Ramirez quickly recognized an important fact: this was not a training problem. Anderson understood the policy. He simply did not support it.

Situational leadership provided a useful framework for understanding the issue. Anderson possessed high competence but declining commitment. Additional instruction was unlikely to solve the problem because the issue was not knowledge, but buy-in.

Instead of repeatedly explaining the policy, Ramirez met with Anderson privately and allowed him to discuss his concerns openly. He listened more than he talked. He acknowledged Anderson’s experience and recognized that veteran officers often struggle with changes they had little role in creating.

Rather than treating Anderson’s experience as an obstacle, Ramirez treated it as an asset. He invited Anderson to help review pursuit data after the policy had been in place for several months and asked him to mentor younger officers on decision-making during high-risk incidents.

Those actions did not eliminate every disagreement. However, they increased Anderson’s involvement, reinforced his value to the department and improved his investment in the policy’s success.

In this situation, more direction was not the answer. The effective response was support, inclusion and respect.

Conclusion

Leadership is often portrayed as finding the perfect style. Situational leadership suggests something different. In sum, the best leaders are not the ones who rely on a single approach. They are the ones who can adapt their approach to what their officer needs at the time.

On any given shift, a supervisor may lead a recruit who needs direction, an officer who needs coaching, a veteran employee who needs support and a high performer who simply needs to be trusted. 

Treating all four the same is easy. Leading each one differently requires judgment. The ability to recognize what people need and adjust accordingly is what makes situational leadership valuable. Ultimately, effective leadership is not about leading in the way you prefer. It is about leading the person standing in front of you.

---

References

Blanchard, K.H., Zigarmi, P., and Zigarmi, D. (1985). Leadership and the one minute manager: Increasing effectiveness through situational leadership. William Morrow.

Graeff, C.L. (1997). Evolution of situational leadership theory: A critical review. Leadership Quarterly, 8(2), 153–170. doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90014-X.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H., and Johnson, D.E. (2013). Management of organizational behavior: Leading human resources (10th ed.). Pearson.

Northouse, P.G. (2022). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). Sage Publications.

Thompson, G., and Vecchio, R.P. (2009). Situational leadership theory: A test of three versions. Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 837–848. doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.014.