Applying Situational Leadership in the Classroom: Guiding the Student to Self Leadership

Situational Leadership in the Classroom

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]

Situational Leadership in the Classroom Page

2



Situational leadership theory (SLT) is an appealing concept. While its application in

industry presents challenges, the nature of the educational classroom further complicates its use.

As currently developed applying SLT methods in the classroom could create issues with

perceptions of fairness. Additionally, instructors 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 the

level of direction they receive. In doing so, we provide further definition to the concept of self

leadership and provide suggestions for its application in the classroom.

Key Words:

Situational Leadership

Self Leadership

Classroom management


3



Situational leadership theory (Hersey & Blanchard, 1977), updated as situational leadership II

(collectively referred to in this paper as SLT) is contained in most if not all mainstream

management and leadership texts used in the United States. The theory, unlike some items in

management texts, is widely applied in industry and is easily accepted by students as intuitively

sound. In its most basic form SLT dictates that the leader’s level of direction should be inversely

proportional to the follower’s “maturity” or “readiness” to do a task. Though the concept is

widely taught it is fair to say that instructors do not in general appropriately model the behavior.

The question then is, should or even can instructors apply this widely accepted principle in the

classroom? The answer surprisingly may be a qualified no.

As appealing as SLT’s formula of explicit interactions between the leader (typically taken

as the instructor) and followers (typically the student) is, its specific application in the class room

may be limited due to issues such as perceptions of fairness. Additionally the size and structure

of typical classrooms make the concept’s application problematic. To apply SLT in the

classroom we need the student to take the leader role and manage the level of direction they

receive.

In this paper we will present a brief overview of SLT and the challenges of its application

in the classroom. This discussion will continue by expanding the concept of self leadership,

positioning the student as a “self leader” in their education and how this concept may be blended

with more traditional perspectives of SLT. The paper then shifts focus and examines means to

maximize the effectiveness of SLT applied within the classroom at a team level.


4

SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORY A BRIEF OVERVIEW

Yukl (2002) defines leadership as “the process of influencing others to understand what

needs to be done … and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish

the shared objectives” (p.7). The challenge of leadership is how to influence. Early leadership

theories looked at leader characteristics as the key to this influence. Later, theories advocating

specific behaviors to maximize influence and outcomes emerged. Recent theories concerning

relationships and charisma may be thought of as extensions of these earlier approaches. There is

one family of leadership theories that, unlike the others, states there is no single best leader

behavior. To maximize leader effectiveness, the leadership technique must be fit to the situation.

Theories advocating this approach have been called contingency theories and SLT is one of the

most widely known of this group.

Situational Leadership Theory (Hersey & Blanchard, 1977) was originally developed as

Life Cycle Theory (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969) and later recast as Situational Leadership II

(Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Nelson, 1985). While the terms used within the concept have been

updated, the essence of the theory remains. The leader fits the follower into one of four maturity

or readiness levels then prescriptively applies the optimal leadership style to enhance

performance. The leadership styles are based upon the Ohio State studies’ concept of an

“initiating structure” and “consideration.” The initiating structure is one that is directive and

autocratic emphasizing structure and task while consideration is focused on the personal

relationship between the leader and follower, valuing follower input and ideas. (Blanchard &

Hersey, 1970) These styles may be presented in a simple 2X2 grid as depicted in figure 1.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insert Figure 1 about here

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


5

In many ways the Ohio State leadership quadrants look similar to Blake and Mouton’s

(1964) Leadership Grid ® (originally termed the Managerial Grid). This model presents a

concern for production (roughly initiating) and a concern for people (roughly consideration) on a

nine by nine grid, pointing leaders to a position of both high concern for production and people.

While the Leadership Grid ® advocates one best leader style, situational leadership states that the

level of emphases on the initiating and consideration structure should be manipulated dependent

on the follower’s “maturity.” This construct is assessed in two dimensions, ability and

willingness or motivation to complete a task (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969).

Using the model’s current terms, (Blanchard & Nelson, 1996) follower “readiness” may

be classified as: Enthusiastic Beginner, Disillusioned Learner, Capable but Cautious Contributor,

and Self-Reliant Achiever. These levels represent: high willingness and low ability, low

willingness and moderate ability, low willingness and high ability, and high willingness along

with high ability respectively. Figure 2 depicts these readiness levels. As the follower matures in

the task they move up through these levels until they are capable of being self-directed in self-

reliant achiever stage. The SLT model is task-specific, and as such there is not one universal

readiness score for an individual follower. As a follower is presented a new task their readiness

for that task should be assumed to be at the lowest level. Readiness must be demonstrated. It is

inappropriate for the leader to gauge readiness based upon inference.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Each of the four readiness levels matches with a specific combination of initiating

structure and consideration behavior, which have been labeled telling, persuading, supporting,


6

and delegating (Blanchard & Nelson, 1996). Figure 3 illustrates the fit between leader style and

readiness. The intuitive logic of the match has great appeal. The leader provides a great deal of

structure (direction) to those new at a task. As task skills grow, the need for direction lessens and

the leader focus shifts to confidence building and finally to becoming a resource to be consulted

as needed. While SLT has been faulted by some for it lack of theoretical foundation (Graeff,

1997) the apparent simplicity of the framework has made it immensely popular in industry and

over three million managers have been trained in the technique (Blanchard & Nelson, 1996).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reality however, the application of the technique does present difficulties. The

assessment of readiness can be a challenge. Additionally, not all leaders will be equally skilled

in the four leader techniques. As the prescribed leader style is a function of follower readiness,

multiple leader styles may need to be deployed within a single group. Further, some workers

may resist “maturing” within the task creating in and out groups. These issues may be further

confounded in the educational setting.

PROBLEMS WITH APPLYING SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN THE CLASSROOM

As engaging as SLT is, can instructors effectively use it in the classroom? In a macro

sense, or class level, the answer may be yes. Instructors would almost certainly treat a freshmen

class different from senior level one. It may be reasonable to be directive with the freshmen

assuming they haven’t learned how to learn in a college environment. Upper level classes may be

given much less supervision as instructors may expect that seniors understand expectations and

perhaps since they are still in school, have some level of motivation. In these examples we are


7

fitting instruction to the group context and perhaps failing to maximize leader outcomes. In a

“class” level application of SLT readiness is assumed the same for all students within that class.

This approach ignores individual differences in ability and motivation which almost certainly

would be present in a classroom. While Blanchard’s (2007) “team” application of SLT has value

we believe the SLT as originally cast at the individual level has the potential for better outcomes.

In an industry application of SLT, the supervisor is typically the leader. Work groups or

teams are of a size that permits frequent supervisor interaction with all team members. This is

not the norm in the college classroom. Most college classes are too large and meet too

infrequently for instructors to effectively assess individual readiness. In class sections with 20

plus (sometimes 100) students, many faculty are challenged to even know the names of their

students yet alone their individual willingness and abilities. Even in sections that are small

enough to allow the instructor to “know” their students, the 150 minutes a week of group

interaction that a three-credit course allows may be insufficient to truly assess readiness. Further

the quality of this contact time becomes increasing less effective when the instructor deploys

lecture like techniques. One may say that instructors can assess readiness for the topic through

evaluations such as tests; however such controls are post-action indicating what has or has not

worked and are not necessarily a tool for learning new material.

Another striking issue with applying the SLT in the classroom is fairness. If instructors

were able to ascertain readiness, can they require different work from various students? How

would a class perceive a “high readiness” student simply being asked to read a chapter while a

“low readiness” student is required to score a minimal quiz grade to progress? Can instructors

require one student to complete multiple drafts of a paper while another is allowed to simply

hand in a final product? Such treatments have the potential to generate perceptions of “pets” and

“singling out.” Customizing instructor “supervision” of the learning process may place students


8

in awkward situations effectively penalizing both those perceived as able and motivated and

those assigned “extra” work in an effort to promote their learning. We believe that applying SLT

at an individual level will produce perceptions of injustice which is likely to generate at best

compliance activities rather than true learning and development.

Perhaps the key reason that SLT cannot be directly applied by instructors in the classroom is that

instructors are not actually the leaders in the learning process. They may be facilitators, advisors,

evaluators; even tour guides however; it is the student that is the leader in the learning process.

(The adage that you can lead a horse to water but can’t make it drink, applies to students as well

as quadrupeds.)

While the instructor may apply coercive persuasion to encourage behaviors, such activity

is unlikely to promote true engagement and learning. Likewise, while most instructors would

relish the thought of being perceived as charismatic, motivating their students by their vision and

personal appeal, few instructors rise to such a level and are left with more basic reward and

punishment means to direct student activity. With learning expectations beyond rote

memorization, the “leadership” responsibility must be with the student.

We propose that to address the shortcomings of SLT as it may be traditionally applied at

the individual level in the classroom it is desirable for the student to be responsible for the

instructor’s level of support received. However, for maximum learning to take place, it is

important for the instructor to exhibit openness.

POSITIONING THE STUDENT TO BE A SELF LEADER

Is it logical to consider the student as the leader in the learning process? Referring again

to Yukl’s (2002) characterization of leadership the answer is yes. Student control of structure is

consistent with the definition. Additionally, with a student leader, a shared objective of learning

remains and the student may coordinate their activity with the instructor. While placing the title


9

of leader on the student may be counterintuitive, it is reasonably consistent with established

definitions of the term. With the student as leader, the instructor remains responsible for setting

and evaluating objectives; however the student may dictate the level of support or structure

provided. Learning in this sense would be much the same as a child taking a trip. A parent may

purchase their child a three-month rail pass and direct them to travel from their comfortable

home to some distant city. Further, the parent may instruct the child to stop, visit and learn the

stories of numerous relatives along the way. The parent has set trip objectives and provided the

basic resources for the trip. The child then sets their route, spending the time they believe is

needed at each stop and calling home when advice or additional resources are needed. We

believe, just as in the example above, to apply the concepts of SLT in the classroom, control of

the student / teacher interaction must be placed with the student. While this proposal is not a

traditional application of SLT, we believe it does honor its intent. The proposal is consistent with

Blanchard’s (1995) conception of self leadership and his presentation of a power ceding

relationship. Further it provides a classroom context and further application direction on what

Blanchard (2008) has characterized as the third skill for self leadership “collaborating for

success.”

To promote student self leadership instructors must (1) expose students to the concept

that they are the leaders, (2) repeatedly present a sincere and blanket invitation to provide

additional guidance and support to students as they request and (3) provide information to allow

students to assess their readiness.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offering to provide additional coaching to students is not a new concept for most

instructors. Virtually every institution requires instructors hold office hours for such a purpose.

To enable student leadership instructors must be more specific and more frequent in their offers

to provide assistance. A student struggling on a paper may not realize that an instructor will

review drafts prior to grading. Likewise an instructor may be happy to provide test reviews (pre

and post) however students may be hesitant to ask if not specifically offered. Instructors should

frequently present a menu of activities that are available to assist in increasing the readiness of

their students. By offering this “extra” help to all, fairness issues are avoided. Students that see

value in the additional direction can initiate closer supervision. These offers can be repeated

individually to encourage students; however the instructor should stop short of requiring “extra”

work, thereby infringing on the student leader role. This method will allow the student to pace

themselves from the enthusiastic learner stage to that of self reliant achiever. Not all students

should be expected to come to complete maturity and the instructor should not show frustration

with students that continue to need support. Students present themselves to our classrooms with a

wide diversity of skills and we should expect different abilities and needs.

SLT looks at readiness based upon ability and willingness, which presents the question;

will an “unwilling” student ask for help on their own accord? To address this potential flaw in

our application there are two answers. The optimistic response is that the learning environment

promoted in this setting will serve to motivate students to achieve, effectively removing low

readiness along this dimension. Students will have more control of their learning and therefore

be more engaged. A more pessimistic, though realistic, view is that instructors cannot truly


motivate student learning. Though there are means to promote compliance, beyond that learning

must be intrinsically driven. Instructors may promote an environment that fosters learning;

however, ultimately it is up to the student to engage. An unwilling learner will not learn

regardless of context.

To allow students to assess their readiness, frequent performance evaluation is a critical

component of our concept. In addition to frequency, students should receive multiples of similar

evaluation types so that they can apply learnings from past performances. If a student is

presented a case assignment only once in a given course, their ability to progress is grossly

limited, as the feedback they receive cannot be applied and technique refined. A motivated

student will learn from each evaluation and produce work products of increasing quality

throughout a term. This concept potentially produces more work for the instructor as evaluation

opportunities and requirements for rich feedback increase. Further, in this feedback, students

should be offered specific menu items of additional support that may lead to improved

performance in future work. If grading feedback is provided on a prepared rubric, an instructor

may post their menu on that tool. A rubric also provides a high level of direction to students

wishing such direction.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


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


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.


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

for comparison purposes:

S1: TDSI—Orientation (high task, low relationship)

S2: TDS2—Dissatisfaction (high task, high relationship)

S3: TDS3—Integration (high task, low relationship)

S4: TDS4—Production (low task, low relationship)

Here’s how the stages apply in the BSG:


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


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.


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)


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)


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)


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!


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!


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.

Applying Situational Leadership in the Classroom: Guiding the Student to Self Leadership

Documents

Transcript of Applying Situational Leadership in the Classroom: Guiding the Student to Self Leadership