Situational Leadership
Match your leadership style to each teammate and task with clear check-ins and feedback loop
“Different strokes for different folks”
— Leadership and the One Minute Manager
When I was promoted from an IC role to a managerial role, I started studying theory to broaden my thinking and build a practical toolbox.
Today’s post was inspired by “Leadership and the One Minute Manager” by Ken Blanchard. This book is a management-focused story about how to work with people.
My aha moment came when I realized that many of those principles described in the book can be broken down into atoms and turned into a playbook. This feels similar to how we build systems in software engineering. For the same reason, I love “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People,” but that’s a great topic for another blog post.
I couldn’t sum up the book in two sentences during meetings with my teammates, so I put together my own short version of the model. Here it is:
Short Version of the Situational Leadership Model
This model is a flexible approach to leadership. The leader adapts the style to the teammate’s level and the task.
Goal Setting
Share the why. When people know the purpose, their everyday decisions get better.
Once the vision is clear, use SMART to nail the task, deliverables, and outcomes.
For big goals, add interim milestones. Agree on what’s due and when, then track it in check-ins.
If the scope touches many teams, a simple RACI helps everyone know their lane.
Diagnosing and Matching
Diagnosing means sizing up a teammate’s competence and commitment for a specific task.
Different situations, people, and tasks call for different leadership styles. A leadership style combines two behaviors: supportive and directive. The theory defines four styles:
S1: Directing (high directive, low supportive)
S2: Coaching (high directive, high supportive)
S3: Supporting (low directive, high supportive)
S4: Delegating (low directive, low supportive)
To choose a style, the leader determines a teammate’s development level for a specific task. The model uses four levels, from Developing (D1) to Developed (D4). The goal is to help people reach D4. Development level is a mix of competence and commitment:
D1: Low competence, high commitment
D2: Low to some competence, low commitment
D3: Variable competence, variable commitment
D4: High competence, high commitment
These styles and levels are checkpoints on a spectrum. They’re not rigid. People can sit between stages.
For each task, the leader identifies the teammate’s development level and chooses the matching style. The model suggests four best pairings: S1 for D1, S2 for D2, S3 for D3, S4 for D4.
Check-ins and Feedback Loop
Give people what they lack. If commitment is high and competence is low, use S1 to focus on direction and skill building, not more motivation.
Keep a tight feedback loop so no one works in a silo. Praise or redirect based on progress.
Check-ins should be scheduled. Cadence depends on the level: D1 more often, D4 maybe monthly or by exception.
Use the tapering principle: as competence grows, reduce directive first, then supportive. Keep re-diagnosing and adjusting.
Mismatch Red Flags
If there’s a mismatch, frustration follows. Common patterns:
D1 with S3/S4: confusion, slow starts → leader should provide direction
D2 with S1: frustration/resistance → leader should share the why, add support, slightly reduce direction
D3 with S4: stall/avoidance → leader should coach and support
D4 with S2: resentment/micromanagement → leader should step back
Takeaways
When I first used the method, I worked with a senior engineer who was new to our codebase. I started with S1 to set steps and checkpoints. We had check-ins every other day, and we did pairing sessions to speed up onboarding. After two weeks, their skills grew but confidence was uneven, so we moved to S2 and added more coaching. They shipped the feature on time with high quality, and stakeholders approval. During our review, we agreed the approach made sense given their limited experience as a new hire.
The book and its theory are a great find. I love how the smaller ideas I already know combine into a bigger system that fits my needs.
I’ve started to battle-test it recently, and the results are promising so far. People appreciate the openness and clarity the method brings.
We’ll see what else I discover on this journey.