Situational leadership is neither agile nor true leadership

Situational Leadership is based on a manager–individual contributor relationship. One party assigns work to the other, adopting a style aligned with the contributor’s level of maturity.
This maturity level is defined by the contributor’s ability/experience related to the task, and by their motivation/willingness to perform that specific task.

From this point of view, in fact, we can't even really speak of Leadership — it's more about Management. There’s no guiding relationship toward a vision or future goal, but rather an attempt to make the coordination of tasks more effective.

Agile, on the other hand, has the Team as its central actor. The goal is to generate value, push the boundaries of known solutions, and explore new paths through the skills, experiences, and contributions of everyone involved.
It’s not a fully mapped-out journey. Along the way, new discoveries, attempts, and redefinitions of the project/product/service features may occur.

Work is done by embracing a constantly evolving situation, practicing continuous experimentation.
This often puts all team members in a “beginner’s” mindset. There is no expert who can simply apply a prescriptive style toward a less experienced or less motivated member, as Situational Leadership would suggest.

Situational Leadership assumes there is a clear awareness of the end goal, often in detail.
Specific tasks are defined to achieve the objective. These are the tasks assigned within the manager–employee relationship.

This approach aligns more with waterfall work methods and contexts characterized by a hierarchical culture. In such contexts, those who define strategy, goals, and work plans have a different role from those tasked with executing the plan.

The Agile Team, on the other hand, actively participates in all phases. From the definition of the product/service, the team autonomously creates its own work plan and evaluates whether the output aligns with the Product Vision agreed upon with the Client and Stakeholders.

In a world of functional organizations and hierarchical culture, Situational Leadership had the merit of encouraging managers to consider people’s differences and unique traits.
The four styles a manager can adopt blend task-oriented and relationship-oriented behaviors in different “percentages.”

In the 1980s and 1990s, this represented a step forward in manager–employee relationships.
However, the ability to adjust one’s relational style remains, in any case, a lever in the hands of a manager who holds a different role from the employee — leading to differing perceptions of the relationship, shaped by roles and rules.

The situation is very different in an Agile team, where the work is based on self-management and it is essential to build and strengthen trust among team members (not in a manager). Trust in the team’s skills and capabilities to achieve the project’s purpose. Trust that every other team member will respect agile practices, be available at key moments, and above all, act in the interest of the shared goal: creating value for the customer.

In conclusion

In organizations adopting new agile ways of working based on self-management, leadership behaviors will be needed — perhaps ones we’ve never seen before.

In addition, a systemic and purpose-driven mindset will be required, capable of generating distributed leadership actions aligned with new team-based organizational models.