← Leadership

Leadership · judgement & practice

Situational leadership: Hersey, Blanchard and SLII

Adapt direction and support to a specific task while distinguishing the original model from Blanchard’s later version.

Paul Hersey & Ken Blanchard; later distinct model developments · 1969 origins · later SLII development · Original editorial explanation
Situational leadership: Hersey, Blanchard and SLII — simplified model sketchSupporting · Coaching · Delegating · Directing. Editorial interpretation, after Paul Hersey & Ken Blanchard; later distinct model developments (1969 origins · later SLII development).SupportingCoachingDelegatingDirectingLESS DIRECTIONMORE DIRECTIONHIGHSUPPORTLOWSUPPORTADM HR · ORIGINAL INTERPRETATIONPaul Hersey & Ken Blanchard; later distinct model developments · 1969 origins · later SLII development
Original simplified sketch after Paul Hersey & Ken Blanchard; later distinct model developments (1969 origins · later SLII development). Read the explanation for assumptions and limitations. Download SVG ↗

The core idea

Hersey and Blanchard developed situational leadership together, then pursued distinct versions. The competence-and-commitment language and directing, coaching, supporting and delegating labels used here describe Blanchard’s later SLII approach. Hersey’s Situational Leadership uses task-specific performance readiness and related terminology. In SLII, directing combines high direction with lower support, coaching combines both at high levels, supporting reduces direction while retaining support, and delegating reduces both. These are responses to a particular goal or task, not permanent labels for employees.

Source and attribution [1]

Using it in practice

Agree the task and what competent performance looks like. Ask about relevant experience, confidence and motivation rather than inferring them from tenure. Decide what instructions, practice, feedback and check-ins would help. Review the agreement as performance develops or the work changes. HR can train managers to have this conversation without presenting a four-box classification as a precise scientific diagnosis.

An example, not a reported case

Worked example · illustrative

An experienced security officer becomes a first-time scheduler. Their operational knowledge is strong, but they have not used the planning system. The manager provides clear steps and checks the first schedules, while explaining why the constraints matter. As the officer gains fluency, reviews focus on judgement in unusual cases. The manager delegates routine scheduling within agreed limits, while remaining available. Expertise in one part of the job is not treated as automatic competence in every new responsibility.

What to watch for

Do not combine different versions’ labels and developmental categories as if they were identical. A lack of resources, unclear authority or an inaccessible system can resemble a capability problem. Lower supportive behaviour in a model does not mean disrespect or neglect. Empirical support and practical usefulness should be considered separately; the framework is a conversation aid, not a guarantee that a particular style will cause success.

Directing and coaching

Use clear direction when a task needs instruction: demonstrate, explain the standard and check understanding. Coaching in this framework adds substantial supportive discussion to substantial direction. It is not identical to non-directive professional coaching. Ask what is confusing and create a safe opportunity to practise before expecting independent delivery.

Supporting and delegating

Supporting can involve listening, shared problem-solving and encouragement when the person can perform the work but benefits from discussion. Delegating should specify the result, authority limits and when to reconnect. It does not mean disappearing. An agreed checkpoint protects autonomy better than unpredictable intervention after every decision.

Review task-specific evidence

A person may need detailed instruction for one responsibility and broad autonomy for another. Keep the assessment tied to examples of work. Invite the person to disagree with your interpretation. If their confidence falls, investigate changed demands or feedback before assuming a stable personal deficit.

A development conversation

Ask: what outcome are we aiming for, what can you already do, what feels uncertain and what support would be useful? Agree a small next step and a review date. Record the agreement in ordinary language. Use formal branded tools only through an authorised route; this guide does not reproduce their questionnaires.

Take it into your next conversation

Three useful questions.

  1. What does this particular situation need from the leader?
  2. How will colleagues experience the approach, including those with less influence?
  3. What evidence would tell us to continue, adjust or stop?

Related terms

Go to the evidence

Sources & attribution

[1] Blanchard: a situational approach to effective leadership ↗

[2] Center for Leadership Studies: Hersey’s Situational Leadership ↗

The core idea is an original summary of the cited work. Application notes, examples and sketches are our interpretations, not quotations or reproductions of the authors’ figures. Publisher records may require access to read the full original work.

Compare leadership models →

Published 2026-09-20 · Reviewed 2026-09-20. Editorial approach

Keep exploring

A little more context.

Leadership · judgement & practice01

Adair’s Action-Centred Leadership

Balance achievement, teamwork and individual development without pretending that each needs equal time every day.

John Adair3 min
Leadership · judgement & practice03

Goleman’s six leadership styles

Choose among direction, development, connection, participation, high standards and command with attention to their effects.

Daniel Goleman3 min