Situational Leadership in the Classroom Page 1 APPLYING SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN THE CLASSROOM: GUIDING THE STUDENT TO SELF LEADERSHIP MICHAEL A.DUTCH Greensboro College Department of Business and Economics 815 West Market Street Greensboro, NC 27455 Tel: (336) 272-7102 Email: [email protected]ROBERT A. HERRING III Winston Salem State University School of Business and Economics 114 R.J. Reynolds center Winston-Salem, NC 27110 Tel: (336) 750-2338 Email: [email protected]
23
Embed
Applying Situational Leadership in the Classroom: Guiding the Student to Self Leadership
Presented at the Lilly South Conference, February 2008, Greensboro, NC, by Michael Dutch and Robert Herring III
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Situational Leadership in the Classroom Page 1
APPLYING SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN THE CLASSROOM: GUIDING THE
STUDENT TO SELF LEADERSHIP
MICHAEL A.DUTCH Greensboro College
Department of Business and Economics 815 West Market Street Greensboro, NC 27455
Providing multiple grading opportunities and committing to provide rich feedback at each
grading event has the potential for increased instructor work. This facet of student leadership
may make its application challenging and therefore less appealing for the instructor particularly,
in larger classroom settings. The retort may be, to promote true learning, it there really a choice?
Is it legitimate to give evaluations, for which instructors are unwilling to provide appropriate
Situational Leadership in the Classroom Page 12
feedback? Is it fair to give students just one chance to show mastery of a technique or topic
regardless of their level or instruction? Even the world-class golfers get to play practice rounds
and then multiple scored rounds of golf leading to their final “grade” or score. Should we expect
undergraduate students to know more of a subject area than say Tiger Woods knows about golf?
Following SLT, instructors should apply a great deal of structure to an initial evaluation
opportunity in a grading series. A student may “think” they know how to answer a case or write
a particular essay response but they have not yet successfully done so in that class. They are, per
the situational leadership model, by definition and unambiguously, at a low level of readiness
when engaging in an initial evaluation event. This may be the only time in instruction that all
students should be assumed (according to SLT) to be at the same level of readiness. All students
should be given very clear expectations and coaching leading up to an initial evaluation.
(Providing a detailed grading rubric to the student as the assignment is given may be an excellent
means to facilitate this support). Rich feedback at various steps leading up to the actual grading
of an assignment or test will promote student learning and success.
When students are successful in this system they will not only have learned the subject
matter but also improved their learning technique. Regrettably some students will not succeed.
Regardless if failure is related to ability or willingness, in the suggested methodology the rich
communication, availability of support, and the clear charge to the student that they control the
level of structure will foster their acceptance of responsibility.
MAXIMIZING THE APPLICATION OF SLT AT THE TEAM LEVEL
As alluded to previously, the principles of SLT have been applied by Blanchard and his
colleagues at the group or team level also. This paper will not attempt to distinguish between the
terms “group” and “team,” since Blanchard and his colleagues seem to use them somewhat
Situational Leadership in the Classroom Page 13
interchangeably. While we believe SLT is maximized when operationalized at the individual
level, there are limited applications for which a group- level deployment may be advised.
Blanchard and colleagues provide select examples of the application of SLT to a classroom
“group”. Finch & Blanchard (2007, pp. 131-133) described an experiment where two eight-week
long classes of a principles of management class were taught by an application of the SLT
Model. In segments of two weeks each, the instructors changed their teaching styles from
directing to coaching to supporting to delegating. Two control group classes used directing and
coaching only. The two experimental classes outperformed the other two and had many other
positive results.
Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson (1996, pp. 193-194) use the classroom as an example of a
situation where, although group readiness may be assessed at a particular level, individuals
within that group may be performing at different levels. Provisions are also made to work with
group members differentially at an individual level. Teachers may have to behave differently
when interacting one-on-one with individual class members than they do when interacting with
the class as a whole. All in all, however, very little is said about applying the SLT model to the
classroom situation.
However, let us consider the situation of a class divided into small groups, or teams. In
this situation the small group, not the class or the individual, may be the appropriate focus of
SLT type interactions. For example, to facilitate productive small learning group interactions,
Michaelsen and his colleagues have developed an entire method of teaching called Team-Based
Learning (Michaelsen, Knight, & Fink, 2002). Many other examples of group and team learning
activities could be considered.
Situational Leadership in the Classroom Page 14
One specific example is a classroom situation in which the teams are given a major team
assignment of some kind. A team assignment used by one of the authors is the Business Strategy
Game (Thompson, & Stappenbeck, 2007) in a Business Policy “capstone” course of a university
business school curriculum. The task is rather complex.
The Business Strategy Game (BSG) is an online simulation exercise where class members are divided into teams and assigned the task of running an athletic footwear company in head-to-head competition against companies managed by other class members. Company operations parallel those of actual athletic footwear companies. Just as in the real world, companies compete in a global market arena, selling branded and private-label athletic footwear in four geographic regions — Europe-Africa, North America , Asia-Pacific, and Latin America (Thompson & Stappenbeck, 2007).
Each week is considered a year in game-playing time. For each year, the companies must make 47 types of decisions in the areas of:
• Production operations (up to 10 decisions for each plant, with a maximum of 4 plants) • Plant capacity additions/sales/upgrades (up to 6 decisions per plant) • Worker compensation and training (3 decisions per plant) • Shipping (up to 8 decisions each plant) • Pricing and marketing (up to 10 decisions in each of 4 geographic regions) • Bids to sign celebrities (2 decision entries per bid)
Team (a team is called a “company,” and the class is the “industry.”) readiness to
perform the game often varies considerably. In the team version of SLT (Carew, Parisi-Carew,
and Blanchard, 2007, pp. 179-194), the names of the four team development stages are adapted
as follows. Correspondence with the terminology of Blanchard’s situational levels is provided
S1: Using a high task approach, the instructor explains the game thoroughly to the students,
requires them to download an on-line Player’s Manual, and provides an in-class demonstration.
The students are often excited about the prospect of playing and competing in the game.
S2: After the first weekly practice “decision” (simulating a year of operations) the students are
rudely awakened to the sheer complexity of the game and the number of interrelated decisions to
be made. The students often become frustrated and discouraged. A high task/high relationship
orientation is appropriate, in that the students need not only further detailed instruction as to the
intricacies of the game, but also a high person approach, encouraging them to persevere through
the steep learning curve.
S3: After two or three decisions the students and teams who have taken a positive attitude toward
the game begin to “get the hang of it.” The better teams coalesce. A spirit of competition sets in
between the teams. They are better able to “take it on their own,” but still need significant
encouragement and continued morale-building (low task, high relationship).
S4: In the Integration stage the better teams evolve into well-run machines. Standings in the
weekly rankings can seesaw back and forth as the teams compete and jockey for position. The
teams now have a capable understanding of the game, and a low task, low relationship leadership
approach on the part of the instructor is appropriate.
In some classes the readiness level of the different teams follows along in a parallel
fashion. In other cases some teams may reach these stages at different times. Some teams may
meet with the instructor for help. They may stay in S2 or S3 for a longer period of time. As
stated earlier, the responsibility for seeking such help rests with the student. However, this does
not preclude the instructor from “reaching out” to students for whom a need is perceived.
CONCLUSION
Situational Leadership in the Classroom Page 16
SLT is an appealing concept. While its application in industry presents challenges, the
nature of the learning process further complicates its use. SLT methods if applied in the
classroom may create issues with perceptions of fairness. Additionally an instructor may not
have the means to appropriately determine each of their students’ ability and willingness for each
learning event. To counter these problems we suggest that the responsibility for the level of
structure be given to the student. In this role instructors facilitate the learning while students have
the ability to control their progress through the stages of readiness and level of direction they
receive.
We acknowledge that allowing the student self-direction at low stages of readiness is
counter to situational leadership doctrine. We believe however, that the system we advocate will
allow for the appropriate level of initiating structure to be delivered while promoting student
learning and development and will increase the potential for learning in the classroom.
Situational Leadership in the Classroom Page 17
Figure 1
Low StructureLow Consideration
High StructureLow Consideration
Low StructureHigh Consideration
High StructureHigh Consideration
Initiating Structure
Con
side
ratio
nOhio State Leadership Quadrants
(Blanchard & Hersey, 1970)
Situational Leadership in the Classroom Page 18
Figure 2
Self-Reliant AchieverDemonstrated
Confidence and Commitment
Enthusiastic BeginnerVery motivated
Limited task ability
Capable but CautiousDemonstrated
task abilityLimited confidence
Disillusioned LearnerInitial excitement gone
Task ability not yetmatured
High Task Ability Low
Follower Readiness Categories
Tas
k M
otiv
atio
nLow
High
Adopted from Blanchard and Nelson (1996)
Situational Leadership in the Classroom Page 19
Figure 3
Delegate to theSelf-Reliant Achiever
WithLow Structure
Low Consideration
Tell theEnthusiastic Beginner
With High Structure
Low Consideration
Support theCapable but Cautious
With Low Structure
High Consideration
Persuade theDisillusioned Learner
High StructureHigh Consideration
Leader Style / Readiness Fit
Adopted from Blanchard and Nelson (1996)
Situational Leadership in the Classroom Page 20
Figure 4: Example of Support Menu Included With Course Syllabus Business Policy and Strategy Customized Support Menu We all have heard the adage you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. Education is much the same. Just as the horse is in control of how much, if any, water it drinks, you are in control of how much you learn. (No I am not calling you a horse). In this class you will assume a leadership role and determine the level of guidance you receive. As you approach unfamiliar grading events or if you are not comfortable with your skill level on a particular type of assignment it may be best to reach out and seek additional guidance. As you gain mastery you may be comfortable with less instructor guidance. You are in control of this process! If you are uncertain if you need assistance, you are encouraged to refer to the menu and place an order. (Wouldn’t you rather confirm you were in good shape rather than risk a grade?) Every written assignment will receive detailed comments when graded. The customized support menu includes the following items.
• Review of written assignment drafts prior to grading (you must allow at least three days before the assignment is due for comment).
• Presentation practice feedback • Help with outlining answers • Clarification of questions • One on one review of specific topics • Test review help • Post assignment and test one on one review and feedback • Extra credit may be made available to the class as a whole (there will no extra credit
opportunities that are not available to the entire class). You may request other support that you would find helpful. Don’t be shy; if it helps you it may help your fellow students also!
You control this process; please use it to your advantage!
Situational Leadership in the Classroom Page 21
Figure 5: Example of Rubric with support menu
BUS4900 Simulation Periodic Company Analysis Report
Name: ________________________________________ Category Fails to meet
expectations Minimally meets Expectation
Exceeds minimal Expectation
Timely Paper copy not handed in per posted schedule
Paper copy handed in per schedule
NA
Professionalism Multiple typos Print errors Paper wrinkled etc Sequence not per recipe
Minimal typos Title page Paper and print crisp Sequenced and attached
NA
Trends and 2 year projections
Incomplete data Trends not identified Data not presented clearly
Graphs clear and complete Projections align with strategy and competitive analysis
Graphs communicate a unified theme and message
Total revenue EPS
ROE Credit rating
Stock price Image rating
Strategic vision Missing, incomplete or inconsistent
Complete Consistent Concise
Compelling Motivational
Competitive strategy for both camera markets
Missing, incomplete or inconsistent
Consistent with vision Comments on modifications from previous strategy
Comments on past success and failures
Strategy for production, marketing and finance
Missing, incomplete or inconsistent
Consistent with vision Comments on modifications from previous strategy
Comments on past success and failures
Competitor analysis Missing, incomplete or inconsistent
Comments on strengths and weakness of at least 2 competitor in each marker
Ties competitor analysis to strategy
Remember the following support options are available to you • Review of written assignment drafts prior to grading (you must allow at least three days before the
assignment is due for comment). • Clarification of questions • You may request other support that you would find helpful, don’t be shy if it help you it may help you
fellow students also!
Situational Leadership in the Classroom Page 22
Situational Leadership in the Classroom Page 23
References
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. 1964. The Managerial Grid. Houston: Gulf.
Blanchard, K. 2007. Leading at a Higher Level: Blanchard on Leadership and Creating High Performing Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Blanchard, K. 1995. Points of Power Can Help Self Leadership. Manage, 46(3): 12-13.
Blanchard, K., & Hersey, P. 1970. A leadership theory for educational administrators. Education, 90(4): 303-310. Blanchard, K., & Nelson, B. 1996. Where do you fit in? Incentive, 170(10): 65-66.
Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, D., & Nelson, B. 1985. Leadership and the one minute manager. New York: William Morrow. Carew, D., Parisi-Carew, E. & Blanchard, K. (2007). Situational Team Performance. In K. Blanchard (Ed.), Leading at a higher level. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Finch, F., & Blanchard, K. (2007). Partnering for performance. In K. Blanchard (Ed.), Leading at a higher level. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Graeff, C. L. 1997. Evolution of situational leadership: A critical review. Leadership Quarterly, 8(2): 153-171.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. 1969. Life cycle theory of leadership. Training and Development Journal, 2: 6-34. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. 1977. Management of organizational behavior: utilizing human resources (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hersey, P., Blanchard, H. E., & Johnson, D. E. (1996), Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (Eds.), (2002). Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups. Westport, CT: Praeger. Thompson, J. J. & Stappenbeck, G. J. (2007) The business strategy game. McGraw-Hill Irwin. http://www.bsg-online.com/
Yukl, G. 2002. Leadership in Organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.