Paul Hersey

Introduction

Paul Hersey (26 January 1931 – 18 July 2012) was an American behavioural scientist and entrepreneur whose Situational Leadership model became one of the most widely taught frameworks in the history of management training. Developed with Ken Blanchard in the late 1960s and set out in their textbook Management of Organizational Behavior, the model claims that effective leadership depends on matching a leader's task and relationship behaviour to the competence and commitment a follower brings to a particular task. Hersey spent five decades turning that single idea into a global training business: the Center for Leadership Studies, which he founded in the 1960s, reports that more than 14 million managers have been trained in the model. The same combination has defined his reputation ever since — enormous practitioner reach, and persistent criticism from academic leadership researchers who argue that the model's prescriptions have never been convincingly validated.

Early Life and Education

Hersey was born in Brooklyn, New York, to Ralph Emerson Hersey and Beatrice Bromell. His education was unusually varied for someone who ended up defining a leadership theory: a Bachelor of Science from Seton Hall University, MBA study at the Universities of Arkansas and Chicago, and finally a doctorate in education from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. That credential matters. Hersey was trained as a behavioural scientist and adult educator rather than as a research psychologist, and the intellectual roots he named for his own thinking were Douglas McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y and Carl Rogers's account of the helping relationship — not the experimental social psychology that later produced most leadership research.

Before graduate school he had already spent years inside organisations rather than studying them from outside, working as a department head at Sandia Corporation, training director at Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical, and project director at the Industrial Relations Center of the University of Chicago. Hersey's model reads the way it does — practical, teachable, prescriptive — because it was built by someone whose problem was always what should this manager do on Monday, not what does the evidence say.

Academic and Professional Career

Hersey held faculty posts at Northern Illinois University, California State University at Chico, the University of Arkansas and Ohio University, serving at Arkansas as chair of the department of management and dean of the school of business. He ended his career as Distinguished Professor of Leadership Studies at Nova Southeastern University and remained chairman of the board of the Center for Leadership Studies until his death. He also contributed to the Isolobella lecture series at Alliant International University in San Diego.

The Center for Leadership Studies, established in the 1960s and later based in Escondido, California, was the vehicle for everything that followed. It licensed the Situational Leadership curriculum and, over time, spun the same two-axis logic into Situational Coaching, Situational Selling and Situational Parenting. Hersey consulted to industrial, government and military organisations and travelled almost continuously for forty years to deliver the training himself; colleagues noted that he insisted on honouring client commitments despite failing health in his final months; he died at the age of 81.

Major Contributions to Psychology

The Situational Leadership model

The model first appeared as the "life cycle theory of leadership" in the 1969 first edition of Management of Organizational Behavior and was renamed Situational Leadership in the mid-1970s. Its structure is deliberately simple. Leadership behaviour is plotted on two axes — directive (task) behaviour and supportive (relationship) behaviour — producing four styles:

  • Telling / Directing (S1) — high directive, low supportive.
  • Selling / Coaching (S2) — high directive, high supportive.
  • Participating / Supporting (S3) — low directive, high supportive.
  • Delegating (S4) — low directive, low supportive.

Each style is paired with a follower development level (D1–D4) defined by competence and commitment for a specific task. The claim that made the model famous is negative: there is no single best way to lead. Against the trait theories that had dominated earlier thinking, and against the one-right-style prescriptions of many management gurus, Hersey argued that the right behaviour depends on who is in front of you and what they are trying to do.

From theory to training product

Hersey's decisive move was not theoretical but commercial and pedagogical: he packaged the model into instrumentation and a licensed curriculum. The LEAD (Leader Effectiveness and Adaptability Description) instrument let managers rate their own style, observe the gap between self-rating and how followers rated them, and leave a one-day workshop with a concrete action. That is why the model spread so far so fast, and it is also why its evidence base is entangled with its commercial success in a way that has never been disentangled.

Later versions and the split with Blanchard

In the 1980s Hersey and Blanchard went their separate ways, and both trademarked versions of the model — Hersey's Situational Leadership through the Center for Leadership Studies, Blanchard's SLII. The versions differ in the composition of the development levels. In the original 1969 formulation, level 1 was "unwilling and unable" and commitment rose monotonically; in the later SLII model, commitment starts high at D1, dips at D2, becomes variable at D3 and rises again at D4. Critics have pointed out that neither version explains the theoretical basis for how competence and commitment combine, and that the levels were re-specified between editions without published justification.

A behavioural science of management

Whatever its empirical standing, Hersey's insistence that leadership varies with the person and the task displaced the search for universal leader traits inside management education, and prefigured the contingency and leader–member exchange traditions that followed. He also insisted, increasingly in his later writing, that leadership is something done with people rather than to them — a framing that came straight from Rogers.

Major Publications

  • Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources (later editions through the ninth).
  • Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. Organizational Change through Effective Leadership.
  • Hersey, P. Selling: A Behavioral Science Approach.
  • Hersey, P. (1984). The Situational Leader.
  • Hersey, P. Situational Selling; Situational Service: Customer Care for the Practitioner; Situational Parenting.
  • Hersey, P. (2012). Leadership Blueprint: Why We Better Lead and Lead Better.

Impact and Legacy

By reach, Hersey is among the most influential figures in applied management psychology. The model is a staple of MBA curricula, corporate academies and coaching certifications, and the Center for Leadership Studies has claimed deployment in 70 per cent of Fortune 500 companies — a figure that originates with the company itself and should be read as such. He died in Escondido, California, on 18 July 2012.

The case against Situational Leadership

The empirical support is weak. This is the central and best-documented objection. Claude Graeff's 1983 critical review argued that the model's usefulness is limited by conceptual ambiguity and by problems in the LEAD instrument, and returned to the theme in 1997. Blank, Weitzel and Green (1990, Personnel Psychology) tested the theory's core assumption — that follower maturity moderates the relationship between leader behaviour and effectiveness — and did not find support. Robert Vecchio and colleagues tested the model's prescriptions among more than 300 high school teachers and their principals (1987), university employees (Fernandez & Vecchio, 1997) and more than 800 cadets at the United States Military Academy (Vecchio, Bullis & Brazil, 2006), without finding the predicted interaction. Most damaging, Thompson and Vecchio (2009, The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 837–848) tested three versions of the model on 357 banking employees and 80 supervisors in Norway and found no clear support in any of them. Their conclusion was unusually blunt: instructors should "as a matter of professional honesty, advise their trainees that SLT still lacks a strong empirical grounding, and that its alluring character should not substitute for the absence of empirical substantiation."

Follower development is never adequately defined. Critics note that neither Hersey nor Blanchard explains how competence and commitment are weighted to produce four distinct levels, why the composition of those levels changed between versions of the same model, or why commitment should be expected to fall as a novice acquires competence. Without research establishing the construct, the dimension that drives the whole prescription remains intuitive rather than demonstrated.

Demographic differences are ignored. Vecchio and Boatwright (2002) found that education and job experience were inversely related to desire for directive leadership, that age was positively related to desire for structure, and that male and female followers preferred different styles. A model that matches style to a single "development level" has no place for any of this.

The evidence of impact is largely marketing. The numbers most often cited for the model — millions trained, overwhelming Fortune 500 adoption — come from the organisation that sells it. Independent outcome data on whether trained managers actually become more effective is close to absent.

What survives. Defenders point to durability, face validity and cross-cultural usability: Avery and Ryan (2002) found that Australian managers trained in the model found it easy to apply and relevant to their roles. The most defensible residue of Thompson and Vecchio's results is also the model's plainest principle — novices benefit from more structure, experienced people from more autonomy — which is worth teaching even if the four-quadrant apparatus built around it is not.

Learn More

References

  • Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Management of Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall.

Last updated: 2026-10-20

Menu
Loading