Monday, September 19, 2022

Situational Leadership: Adapting Your Instructional Style to Your Learner’s Current Place in Their Educational Journey

 Alec Martschenko, PharmD

    As anyone who has embarked on an educational journey can attest, not everyone reaches the same level of educational achievement at the same time. Even within the same class or the same cohort, an educator may find that his or her students are at vastly different stages of their educational journey. At this point in the 21st Century, it is well known that trying to apply a one-size-fits-all method to education will invariably lead to the exclusion of a subset of learners. Those who struggle and are left behind or those who excel and feel unchallenged—or both—will not have their needs met by such a strategy.

       Situational leadership is a framework that aims to identify a followers readiness level and provide leadership strategies most applicable to that particular stage in development. While originally developed for and most commonly used in corporate settings, situational leadership has generalizable applicability outside of executive board rooms and managerial development retreats. In particular, situational leadership can be applied to the experiential education of healthcare professional students.

While the basics of situational leadership theory are explained below, the interested reader is encouraged to consult the references for further information.1,2 In brief, situational leadership ranks a follower (or student) on two broad categories: task readiness and psychological readiness. Task readiness refers to a student’s ability to perform a task, for example, a pharmacy student’s ability to recall important drug information or a nursing student’s ability to start an IV in a patient. Psychological readiness, on the other hand, refers to a student’s willingness to perform a task, including the desire, motivation, energy, and confidence to do so. For example, a medical student may know that a patient with asymptomatic bacteriuria does not always require antibiotics but may lack the confidence to contradict his or her attending physician in saying so. On the flip side, a learner can be psychologically ready, but not task ready—think of a pharmacy technician happy to work in the IV lab, but unaware that he or she does not know the difference in technique required between vertical and horizontal laminar flow hoods.

In the attached visualization, an altogether unready learner falls under D1, a psychologically ready but task unready learner falls under D2, a task ready but psychologically unready learner falls under D3, and a psychologically and task ready learner falls under D4. Variations in the model exist, and each individual learner is unique. Some may skip steps or regress at times, so it is important to continually assess where a learner is on the continuum to tailor their educational experience. More important, however, is knowing how to adapt your educational methods.

The method most appropriate for learners in the first domain (psychologically and task unready) is often described as directing. It often involves step-by-step directions, close supervision, and a certain level of coercion. For example, a pharmacy student may be tasked with making an intervention with a provider and receive direction on how best to phrase the recommendation.

For learners in the second domain (psychologically ready, but task unready), coaching is the preferred leadership style. This involves a high level of directive behavior and psychologically supportive behavior. A highly motivated student may best learn by doing but would require close supervision as he or she as of yet lacks the skills necessary to do so independently.

The third domain (task ready, but psychologically unready) requires a supporting teaching strategy. While a student may possess the skills to perform a task, they may require supportive confirmation that their knowledge is correct before building up the confidence to follow through on that assignment.

Finally, learners in the fourth domain (task ready and psychologically ready) can best be managed by a delegating approach. Students can be trusted to perform tasks accurately and have the motivation and confidence to do so independently. A senior resident, for example, would be able to trust the assessment of an intern in this domain before examining the patient independently.

The terms used above may vary, but the principles remain the same. By performing continual assessments of a learner’s willingness and capabilities, their education can be individualized and adapted to best meet their needs. However, caution must be made to acknowledge the limitations and pitfalls of the situational leadership model. There are certainly more than four types of learners, and an educator must realize that students can fall under different domains in different circumstances. A more granular approach, taking into account a student’s area of strength or weakness, could more appropriately address these variances.

It should also be noted that, while situational leadership has been used in various aspects of healthcare delivery, real outcomes data on its efficacy are sparse and unconvincing.3,4 It would be a mistake to take situational leadership, or any teaching philosophy, as an immutable gospel that cannot be deviated from. Rather, a wise educator and leader should study this theory and incorporate it into their vast armament of didactic strategies, wielding it only when it suits the situation at hand. In combination with other teaching strategies, situational leadership can be a powerful tool to make healthcare learning more adaptable, specific, and successful.

References:

1. de Bruin L. Hersey and Blanchard Situational Leadership Model explained: B2U. Business-to-you. https://www.business-to-you.com/hersey-blanchard-situational-leadership-model/. Published March 28, 2020. Accessed August 28, 2022.

2. Hersey P, Angelini AL, Carakushansky S. The Impact of Situational Leadership and Classroom Structure on Learning Effectiveness. Group & Organization Studies. 1982;7(2):216-224. doi:10.1177/105960118200700209

3. Johansen, B.-C. P. (1990). Situational leadership: A review of the research. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 1(1), 73–85.doi:10.1002/hrdq.3920010109

4. Walls, Elaine (2019) The Value of Situational Leadership. Community practitioner : the journal of the Community Practitioners' & Health Visitors' Association, 92 (2). pp. 31- 33. ISSN 1462-2815

No comments:

Post a Comment