Situational Leadership: 4 Styles and When to Use Them

Key Takeaways

• Situational leadership adjusts the amount of direction and support a leader gives based on an employee's readiness for a specific task.
• Hersey's model uses four styles: Telling, Selling, Participating, and Delegating, matched to readiness levels R1 through R4.
• Readiness is task-specific. Leaders assess whether an employee has the ability and willingness to perform the work before choosing an approach.
• The right leadership style should change as an employee gains skill, confidence, or independence; no single style works best in every situation.
• Situational leadership is especially relevant in hospitality, where managers regularly move employees between close guidance, support, and greater responsibility as their skills develop.

The same instruction can help one employee and frustrate another. Tell an experienced duty manager exactly how to handle a guest complaint, and they may feel undermined. Give a first-week trainee the same level of freedom, and they may not know what to do next. 

The leadership challenge is not simply deciding whether to be more or less involved. It is knowing how much direction and support a particular employee needs for a particular task. That need can change as the employee gains experience and confidence.

Situational leadership was developed around this problem. Instead of asking leaders to follow one management style consistently, the model gives them a framework for adjusting their approach to the person and situation in front of them.

What Is Situational Leadership?

Situational leadership is a model in which leaders adjust how much direction and support they give an employee based on that person's readiness to perform a specific task. Readiness refers to whether the employee has the ability to do the task and the willingness or confidence to take responsibility for it. 

The model looks at two types of leader behavior:

• Task behavior is the amount of instruction and structure a leader provides.
• Relationship behavior is the amount of encouragement, discussion, and support they provide.

Different combinations of the two form the four situational leadership styles.

The model was developed in 1969 by leadership researchers Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard. They drew on earlier research at Ohio State University, which had identified task-focused and relationship-focused behavior as two separate dimensions of leadership. Hersey and Blanchard applied that idea to a practical question: how should a leader change their approach when an employee's ability or willingness for a particular task changes?

The result is the central principle of situational leadership: there is no single leadership style that works best in every situation. The appropriate approach depends on the person and the task.

The Two Versions of the Situational Leadership Model

Readers researching situational leadership will often encounter different terminology because the original model eventually developed into two related frameworks.

After Hersey and Blanchard created the original model together in 1969, the former continued developing Situational Leadership, while the latter then developed SLII (Situational Leadership II), introduced in 1985 with Pat and Drea Zigarmi. The two frameworks retain the same broad principle of adjusting leadership behavior to an individual's needs on a particular task, but they use different terminology and differ in some aspects of how employee development is interpreted.

Hersey's model evaluates Performance Readiness through a person's ability and willingness to perform a task. It uses levels R1 through R4 and the leadership styles Telling, Selling, Participating, and Delegating. The current Center for Leadership Studies also uses terms such as Directing or Guiding for S1, Coaching or Explaining for S2, Collaborating or Facilitating for S3, and Empowering or Monitoring for S4.

Blanchard's SLII uses competence and commitment to determine development levels D1 through D4. Its four leadership styles are Directing, Coaching, Supporting, and Delegating, expressed through different amounts of directive and supportive behavior.

This article uses Hersey's R1-R4 readiness levels and Telling, Selling, Participating, and Delegating labels for consistency. Where SLII uses a different style name, that equivalent is noted in brackets.

The Four Situational Leadership Styles

The four styles describe different combinations of task and relationship behavior. A leader does not permanently belong to one of these categories. The same manager may use different styles with different employees, or even with the same employee, depending on the task.

The first step is identifying the person's readiness for that task. In Hersey's model, readiness ranges from R1, where the person has not yet demonstrated the necessary ability and also lacks confidence or willingness, to R4, where the person has both the ability and willingness to perform independently.

S1: Telling

Telling is matched with R1 when someone has not yet demonstrated the ability to perform a particular task and is also insecure or unwilling to take it on. The leader therefore provides clear instructions, defines the expected result, and follows the work closely.

Consider a new front desk employee handling a busy check-in period for the first time. They may not yet know the hotel's procedures well enough to decide how to prioritize guests or respond when something goes wrong. Giving them clear steps and remaining available for immediate guidance provides structure while they learn.

The important point is that this level of direction is task-specific and temporary. Continuing to supervise someone this closely after they have demonstrated that they can perform the task may become unnecessary and restrictive.

In SLII, the closest equivalent is Directing.

S2: Selling

Selling is matched with R2. The employee is willing or confident about taking on the task but has not yet demonstrated the ability to perform it independently. The leader still provides substantial direction but adds more explanation, discussion, and encouragement.

An assistant manager conducting their first inventory count might fit this level. They are motivated to take responsibility but still need to understand the procedure and what constitutes an accurate result. Rather than simply giving instructions, the manager explains why each step matters, answers questions, and checks understanding.

The risk here is treating enthusiasm as evidence of ability. Someone may be highly motivated and still need considerable guidance while learning a new task.

In SLII, the closest equivalent is Coaching.

S3: Participating

Participating is matched with R3. At this level, the employee has demonstrated the ability to perform the task but may lack confidence or willingness. Because they already know how to do the work, the leader reduces task direction and puts more emphasis on discussion and support.

For example, an experienced team member may know how to resolve a guest complaint but still ask the manager to approve every decision. Repeating the procedure is unlikely to help because ability is no longer the issue. The leader may instead discuss the employee's concerns, ask how they would handle the situation, and encourage them to use judgment they have already demonstrated.

Providing too much direction at this stage can keep the employee dependent on the manager rather than helping them become more confident in decisions they are already capable of making.

In SLII, the closest equivalent is Supporting.

S4: Delegating

Delegating is matched with R4, when the employee has demonstrated both the ability and willingness to perform the task. The leader therefore reduces direct involvement and gives the employee greater responsibility for deciding how the work will be completed.

An experienced duty manager who has successfully managed hotel shifts many times may not need detailed instructions on how to run another one. The leader can agree on the expected outcome and any necessary checkpoints, then allow the duty manager to make operational decisions independently.

Delegating does not mean removing all contact or support. The leader remains available when needed, but avoids providing direction the employee no longer requires. The important distinction is that responsibility is delegated because the person is ready for it, not simply because the manager wants to step away.

The style is also called Delegating in SLII.

How to Diagnose What Your Team Member Needs

Choosing the right situational leadership style depends on making an accurate assessment before you act. The goal is to understand what is causing the employee to need more or less involvement from you.

Look for evidence in their recent performance. Can they complete the task correctly without prompting? Do they hesitate even when they know what to do? Are mistakes coming from a lack of skill, a lack of confidence, or resistance to taking responsibility?

A useful diagnosis focuses on questions such as:

• What have they already demonstrated they can do independently?
• Where are they still making errors or asking for guidance?
• Do they take ownership of the task or avoid it?
• Has their performance or confidence changed recently?

The distinction matters because different problems require different responses. More instruction will not solve a confidence issue, while encouragement alone will not replace missing knowledge or experience. The leader's job is to identify the actual need before deciding how much direction or support to provide.

Situational leadership examples in practice

Situational leadership is needed in many different contexts because leadership itself is not a fixed behavior. It must adapt to the demands of the task, the experience of the team, and the pressures of the situation. The examples below illustrate the central idea of situational leadership, which is that effective leadership does not always look the same.

Sir Alex Ferguson, the football coach, for example, managed Manchester United for 26 seasons and won 38 domestic and international trophies. What makes his leadership relevant here is not the number of titles, but how closely he watched his players and adjusted how he dealt with them. In a Harvard Business Review examination of his management, Ferguson described the importance of matching his message to the moment. Sometimes a player needed encouragement; when expectations were not met, a direct reprimand could be more appropriate. He also relied heavily on observation to notice changes in a player's confidence, motivation, or performance.

That reflects an important part of situational leadership: the leader responds to what the individual needs rather than using the same response automatically. Ferguson still maintained clear authority and standards, so adapting his approach did not mean giving up control.

In a different field entirely, Howard Schultz, then chairman and CEO of Starbucks, faced a different leadership problem in 2008. The company wanted to restore consistency in how its baristas prepared espresso, so nearly 7,100 company-operated U.S. stores closed for three hours while about 135,000 employees received hands-on retraining. The training returned employees to specific standards for pulling espresso shots and preparing drinks.

In situational leadership terms, this illustrates when more direction is appropriate. The issue was a specific skill that needed to be performed to a consistent standard, so clear instruction and practice were more useful than simply giving employees greater independence. Once employees know the task and can perform it reliably, the level of direct guidance can decrease.

The same principle is particularly relevant in hospitality, where employees often move from guided training to taking greater responsibility as their skills develop. That progression is built into the learning experience at César Ritz Colleges Switzerland, where students combine practical hospitality training with international internships designed to help them apply their skills and, later, take on greater responsibility in real working environments.

Alumnus Parth Dhawan experienced that progression firsthand. After practical training at César Ritz Colleges and several internships, including his final placement in F&B at Burj Al Arab in Dubai, he described becoming confident enough to work independently without waiting to be told what to do. His experience illustrates the same principle behind situational leadership: as someone's ability and confidence develop, the level of direction they need should change with them.

The point is not that Ferguson, Schultz, or a hotel manager belongs to one permanent leadership category. Situational leadership describes the approach used in a particular situation, not the personality of the leader.

How to Build Situational Leadership Skills

Building situational leadership skills starts with becoming more deliberate about how you respond to people. Look at recent situations where an employee struggled or needed more involvement from you. Did you give instructions when the real issue was confidence? Did you step back before the person was ready to work independently? Reviewing those decisions helps you identify where your own leadership habits may be getting in the way.

Feedback from the people you manage is useful here too. Ask what they need more of or less of from you when working on a specific responsibility, then change your approach and watch what happens. The aim is to get better at recognizing when someone needs clearer direction and when additional involvement is no longer helping.

That kind of judgment develops faster when leaders have opportunities to practice and receive feedback. Experiential learning at César Ritz Colleges is built around this principle, combining academic learning with real-life examples and hands-on activities. The school's own discussion of mistakes new leaders make also emphasizes practice, feedback, and reflection as ways to develop stronger leadership habits.

For professionals who want to develop these skills more formally, the Master of Science in Leadership moves from courses such as Leading People and Organizations into case-based Leadership in Practice and experiential leadership training. Students later apply their learning through a leadership and management capstone or Start-Up Accelerator Program. These settings give leaders repeated opportunities to assess how they respond to people and reconsider their approach when the situation changes.

One particularly relevant example is the Equine Leadership Workshop. Students complete non-verbal exercises with horses and then reflect on how their own behavior affected the interaction. Horses respond closely to changes in body language and emotional state, so participants receive an immediate response when they alter how they communicate or lead. For situational leadership, that is useful practice: the participant has to observe the response in front of them and adjust their own behavior instead of relying on one familiar leadership approach.

Lead the Person, Not the Job Title

Situational leadership is useful because it gives leaders a way to respond to people more precisely. The goal is not to become less consistent, but to be more intentional about when an employee needs clear direction, when they need support, and when they are ready for greater independence.

That judgment becomes more important as teams become more varied in experience, confidence, and responsibility. For hospitality leaders in particular, where service quality depends heavily on how people perform in real time, adapting your approach can have an immediate effect on both the employee and the guest experience.

Developing that level of judgment takes practice. Environments such as César Ritz Colleges, where leadership development is tied closely to experiential learning, give students opportunities to test how they lead, reflect on the response, and adjust their approach before taking those skills into more senior roles.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between situational leadership and transformational leadership?

Situational leadership adjusts a leader's direction and support based on a follower's readiness for a specific task, while transformational leadership focuses on inspiring long-term change through vision and shared purpose, independent of task-level readiness.

Who is a famous situational leader?

In addition to the names provided above, Steve Jobs, co-founder and longtime CEO of Apple, and Colin Powell, a U.S. Army general who later served as Secretary of State, are examples whose leadership can be examined through a situational lens because they operated across very different people, pressures, and responsibilities.

Is situational leadership the same as contingency theory?

No. Situational leadership assumes a leader can adapt their own behavior to fit the follower and the task, while Fiedler's contingency theory assumes a leader's style is relatively fixed and instead recommends matching leaders to situations that suit their style.

Can you use situational leadership with a whole team rather than one person?

The model is built around individual development levels for individual tasks, so applying it to a whole team means diagnosing and adjusting for each member separately rather than treating the team as a single unit. This is one reason situational leadership is often discussed alongside servant leadership, which centers the leader's role as supporting each team member's individual growth.

Does situational leadership work when you manage a remote team?

Yes, though diagnosis takes more deliberate effort. Without daily in-person observation, leaders need to rely more heavily on direct conversation, check-in questions, and documented outcomes to accurately assess competence and commitment.