Hersey-Blanchard SLT 4 LEADERSHIP STYLES organized on a 2x2 task-behavior + relationship-behavior matrix. (1) S1 TELLING (Hersey) / DIRECTING (Blanchard) - HIGH TASK + LOW RELATIONSHIP behaviors. Leader provides specific instructions + closely supervises performance + clearly defines roles + tells what + when + how + where to do the task. Appropriate for low-readiness/D1 followers who need clear direction + structure + frequent monitoring. Risk: paternalistic + micromanagement perception if applied to higher-readiness followers. (2) S2 SELLING (Hersey) / COACHING (Blanchard) - HIGH TASK + HIGH RELATIONSHIP behaviors. Leader explains decisions + provides direction + invites questions + provides opportunities for clarification + checks understanding. Appropriate for some-readiness/D2 followers who need direction PLUS support + buy-in. Effective for building competence + commitment together. (3) S3 PARTICIPATING (Hersey) / SUPPORTING (Blanchard) - LOW TASK + HIGH RELATIONSHIP behaviors. Leader shares ideas + facilitates decision-making + listens + facilitates problem-solving + provides recognition + builds confidence. Appropriate for moderate-to-high readiness/D3 followers who have skills but variable commitment + confidence. Effective for building autonomy + collaboration. (4) S4 DELEGATING - LOW TASK + LOW RELATIONSHIP behaviors. Leader turns over responsibility for decisions + implementation + monitors at agreed milestones. Appropriate for high-readiness/D4 followers who have both competence + commitment + can operate independently. Effective for empowerment + leveraging high-performers. STYLE FLEXIBILITY: effective leaders develop comfort + capability across all 4 styles + can switch among them as situational demands change; few leaders are naturally comfortable in all 4. STYLE APPLICATION: leaders apply style based on diagnosis of follower readiness for the SPECIFIC TASK at hand - same follower may need S1 for new task + S4 for proven task simultaneously.
This control maps to 18 controls across 12 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 18 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.