DDHA 8113 Week 2 Leadership Theory Comparison Example

One Overnight Rotation From Two: Transformational and Situational Leadership Set Against the Same Call Consolidation, and Where Their First Moves Part

Student Name

Walden University

DDHA 8113: Advanced Concepts in Healthcare Leadership

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

One Overnight Rotation From Two: Transformational and Situational Leadership Set Against the Same Call Consolidation, and Where Their First Moves Part

The Decision Both Theories Must Face

Calder Valley Health, the invented system used throughout this course, runs separate overnight general neurology call at its two larger hospitals. Six neurologists cover the north campus and five cover the south, so each takes overnight call roughly one night in five or six. Acute stroke alerts are already handled by a telestroke service, which means most overnight neurology calls are consults that can wait for a telephone discussion or a video assessment. The service line director proposes merging the two rotations into one shared overnight rotation of eleven neurologists, supported by video consults, which would cut each physician's overnight call to about one night in eleven. The south campus group fears losing its identity and its say over who covers its patients. The north group welcomes the lighter call but worries about consults at an unfamiliar hospital. This paper runs two leadership theories across that one decision, states what each would have the director do first and spends its last sections on the point where they disagree.

Transformational Leadership Applied

Transformational leadership describes a leader who raises followers' commitment to a shared purpose through four behaviors: a credible personal example, an inspiring account of where the group is going, encouragement to question assumptions and attention to each person's needs and growth (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Applied to the call merger, the theory would have the director start with purpose rather than logistics. The merged rotation would be presented as a step toward sustainable careers in a specialty where overnight burden drives early retirement, and toward a system where a patient at either hospital gets the same consult standard. The director would invite neurologists from both groups to challenge the plan's assumptions, for instance whether video consults are acceptable for new weakness in a patient on the medical floor, and would meet individually with the south campus physicians to understand what they fear losing.

The evidence behind this approach is reasonably strong. A meta-analysis by Judge and Piccolo (2004) found that transformational leadership was associated with follower satisfaction, motivation and rated leader effectiveness across many studies, with correlations that held up across settings. The theory's first move, then, is a shared meeting of all eleven neurologists in which the director sets out the purpose and asks the group to shape the plan.

Situational Leadership Applied

Situational leadership begins somewhere else. In its account, what a leader should do turns on the readiness of followers for a particular task, meaning their competence and their commitment to it, and that leaders should shift between directing, coaching, supporting and delegating as readiness changes (Thompson & Vecchio, 2009). Applied here, the theory would have the director stop treating the eleven neurologists as one audience and break the merger into tasks. On the clinical task of covering overnight consults, all eleven are highly competent, but commitment differs sharply: high at the north campus and low at the south. That calls for a supporting style with the south group, focused on listening and shared decisions, and something close to delegation with the north group. On the new task of conducting video consults at an unfamiliar hospital, competence is low for almost everyone, since few have done it, which calls for a directing style: clear protocols, a defined escalation path and supervised first consults.

The theory's first move is therefore not a shared meeting but a set of separate moves: a written video consult protocol issued with directions, a listening session with the south group and a light-touch update to the north group.

Where the Two Theories Agree

On several points the theories arrive at the same advice by different routes. Both would have the director meet the south campus group separately, transformational leadership because of its attention to individual concerns and situational leadership because that group's commitment is low. Both would avoid announcing the merger as finished. And both would treat the neurologists' clinical judgment as an asset rather than an obstacle. A director following either theory would not simply issue a new call schedule.

Where Their First Moves Part

The disagreement is about the first public act. Transformational leadership says start together, with purpose: a meeting of all eleven, a shared account of why the merger matters and an invitation to redesign it. Situational leadership says start apart, with the task: protocols for the unfamiliar work, support for the reluctant group and room for the willing group, without a shared meeting until each group is ready for one. The two moves send different signals. The shared meeting tells the south campus group that its concerns will be weighed in front of colleagues, which may help or may expose a minority to pressure from a larger group. The separate moves treat the south group's reluctance as something to be addressed privately, which may feel respectful or may feel like being managed.

The theories also part on the video consult protocol. Transformational leadership would encourage the neurologists to question and design it, which fits experienced professionals but slows the work. Situational leadership would issue it with direction, because the group lacks experience with the task, and would loosen control as competence grows. On this point the evidence favors caution about situational leadership's specific prescriptions. Thompson and Vecchio (2009) tested three versions of the theory and found limited support for its claims about which style suits which readiness level, and a later test from three perspectives found only partial support (Thompson & Glasø, 2015). The theory's general idea of matching behavior to the task is intuitive, but its detailed matching rules are weakly supported.

The Director's Choice

The director chose a hybrid that took its sequence from situational leadership and its content from transformational leadership. The first act was a listening session with the south campus group, because a shared meeting risked pressing a reluctant minority into public opposition. The second was a shared meeting of all eleven, opened with the purpose of sustainable call and equal consult standards, in which the neurologists were asked to redesign the draft video protocol rather than receive it. The choice on the protocol followed the transformational line, because the neurologists' expertise in neurology outweighed their inexperience with video, and because the evidence for situational leadership's directing prescription is weak.

What the Comparison Shows

Running both theories against one decision shows that they are not rival descriptions of the same advice. They differ about whether a leader should address a professional group as a whole or as a set of subgroups and tasks, and about whether direction or invitation should come first when competence is uneven. Neither theory decided the case alone. The comparison made the choice of sequence visible, and the evidence on each theory helped decide how much weight to give its specific prescriptions.

Conclusion

Transformational leadership would open the call merger with a shared statement of purpose and an invitation to redesign the plan. Situational leadership would open with separate moves fitted to each group's readiness for each task. They agree on meeting the reluctant group separately and on not announcing a finished plan, and they part on the first public act and on who designs the video protocol. The director took the sequence from one theory and the stance from the other, and the evidence base for each guided that split.

References

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755

Thompson, G., & Glasø, L. (2015). Situational leadership theory: A test from three perspectives. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 36(5), 527-544. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-10-2013-0130

Thompson, G., & Vecchio, R. P. (2009). Situational leadership theory: A test of three versions. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 837-848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.014