Executive Summary

^{Ismael Gonçalves de Lima; Marcela Gimenes Bera Oshita}

^{Summary prepared by the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by the Pecege Institute focused on synthesis and writing.}

This study analyzes how leaders adapt their situational leadership styles to the needs of multigenerational teams, considering the levels of maturity, competence, and commitment of employees. The investigation maps the predominant styles adopted by managers in a paper and pulp sector company, correlating them with the sociodemographic characteristics of the leaders and the demands of operational contexts such as integration of new members, crisis management, goal setting, and conflict resolution. The research assumes that leader flexibility is a determining factor for engagement and performance in corporate scenarios of generational diversity and constant innovation.

Leadership plays a central role in driving organizational dynamics, especially in the 21st-century scenario of intense technological, social, and economic transformations. In this context, leaders are challenged to innovate, adapt, and guide their teams strategically. Leadership effectiveness directly impacts decision-making, talent development, organizational climate, and conflict management (Kotter, 1996). The absence of structured leadership can result in a loss of strategic focus, decreased productivity, and increased turnover. Adaptability, therefore, emerges as a crucial competence for navigating complex and diverse environments.

Among the theoretical models, Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Theory (1969) stands out for the premise that there is no single ideal leadership style for all situations. Contemporary studies reinforce the model’s relevance in organizations with hybrid and multigenerational teams, where rapid adaptation is imperative (Campos and Moura, 2022). The situational approach proposes that the leader’s effectiveness lies in their ability to diagnose the team’s maturity level for a task and apply the most appropriate leadership style. This diagnostic capability has become more critical in the post-pandemic scenario, which demands greater empathy, flexibility, and autonomy (Rodrigues and Barros, 2021).

The model describes four leadership styles, which combine task behavior (direction) and relationship behavior (support). Style S1 (Direction) presents high direction and low support, being suitable for collaborators with low competence and commitment (maturity M1). Style S2 (Orientation) combines high direction and high support, ideal for teams with some competence, but who lack confidence or motivation (maturity M2). Style S3 (Support) offers low direction and high support, aimed at competent collaborators who may present insecurity (maturity M3). Style S4 (Delegation) involves low direction and low support, applied to teams with high competence and commitment (maturity M4). The study also considered the occurrence of the SP (No Standard) style, which denotes inconsistent leadership and can compromise management effectiveness (Hersey and Blanchard, 1986).

The complexity of the work environment is accentuated by the coexistence of multiple generations, such as Generation X, Millennials (Generation Y), and Generation Z, each with distinct values and expectations (Silva and Oliveira, 2018). This generational diversity requires leaders to adjust their style not only to technical and emotional maturity but also to the cultural nuances of each group. Situational leadership, with its emphasis on flexibility, presents itself as a strategic tool for managing this complexity, allowing the leader to modulate their approach to maximize the engagement of heterogeneous teams. As Thommes (2024) points out, the first step in adaptive leadership is the perception of the changes necessary to initiate appropriate transformations in team interactions.

The research adopted a qualitative exploratory approach, conducted between May and June 2025 in a large company in the pulp and paper sector, specializing in corrugated cardboard packaging. The organization was selected for its defined hierarchical structure and multiple leadership levels, which favors the analysis of the application of situational leadership practices. The company’s structure assumes that leaders adapt their style according to the development, competence, and motivation of their teams, making it a conducive field for investigation.

Data collection occurred through a structured questionnaire on the Google Forms platform. The instrument, based on Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Theory (1986), presented hypothetical scenarios for participants to indicate their probable course of action, corresponding to one of the leadership styles (S1, S2, S3, S4, or SP). The questionnaire application was authorized by the company, ensuring compliance with ethical standards. Participation was voluntary, with an estimated completion time of 15 to 20 minutes.

The sample was composed of 17 collaborators in leadership positions (supervisors, team leaders, coordinators), intentionally selected. The choice is justified by the need to investigate the practice of managers with experience in leading multigenerational teams. The participants were between 30 and 50 years old, reflecting the age diversity of management. The selection of leaders with practical experience is fundamental, as, according to Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (2010), the effective application of situational leadership depends on the leader’s ability to diagnose the maturity of the led and adjust their behavior.

The data analysis was performed by tabulating the responses, identifying the predominant leadership styles. Subsequently, this data was cross-referenced with sociodemographic variables (age group, education level, tenure) to identify patterns and correlations between the leader’s profile and the preference for certain styles, enriching the understanding of how individual characteristics influence management practices.

The analysis of the results of the 17 leaders revealed a predominantly male sociodemographic profile (76%), with the majority (71%) being 40 years or older. Regarding education, 94% had completed higher education and 29% had postgraduate degrees. This level of qualification, combined with age maturity, suggests a predisposition for more flexible and participative leadership styles, such as S3 (Support) and S4 (Delegation), according to the literature (Blanchard, 2004). Consolidated professional experience tends to favor team confidence and the decentralization of responsibilities, especially with more mature subordinates (M3/M4).

The analysis of the leadership styles adopted revealed the predominance of style S2 (Orientation), with high direction and high support. This was the most frequent style in conducting meetings (64.7%) and setting goals (47.1%), indicating that leaders seek to balance clear guidelines with dialogue and encouragement. The finding suggests that managers perceive their teams at an intermediate maturity level (M2), with technical competence but needing support and alignment to maintain engagement. The prevalence of S2 is in line with management practices that value communication and the development of autonomy (Northouse, 2018).

In contexts requiring assertive intervention, such as integrating a new employee (maturity M1), dealing with performance failures, or training for a new role, the S1 (Directing) style was the most adopted, with 64.7%, 64.7%, and 82.4% preference, respectively. This choice demonstrates strong adherence to the Hersey and Blanchard (1986) model, which recommends a directive stance for low-maturity situations, where clarity of instructions and follow-up are fundamental. The consistent application of S1 in these scenarios indicates that leaders diagnose situations demanding control well.

On the other hand, the S4 style (Delegation) was the least used, but it predominated in scenarios of high perceived maturity. When dealing with experienced collaborators and during periods of good performance, S4 was the majority choice, with 82.4% and 64.7% preference, respectively. This shows that leaders recognize the competence and commitment of their teams in favorable contexts. However, the low overall incidence of S4 may signal a difficulty for managers in fully delegating or a perception that most teams have not reached the M4 maturity level. This reluctance to delegate may be a point of attention for organizational development (Drucker, 1954).

Situations of greater complexity, such as conflict resolution, revealed a greater dispersion of styles and a notable incidence of the SP (No Standard) style, chosen by 47.1% of leaders in this scenario. The predominance of SP suggests that, when faced with conflicts, many managers act reactively, without a consistent method. The absence of a standard can generate insecurity and compromise the organizational climate (Schein, 2010). In other situations, such as when dealing with customer complaints, the S3 (Support) style was the most used (47.1%), indicating a preference for collaborative problem-solving.

The cross-referencing with sociodemographic data identified patterns. More experienced leaders (over 10 years in office) and older leaders (over 50 years old) showed a greater propensity to use S3 and S4 styles, reflecting greater confidence in the team. In contrast, younger leaders (30-39 years old) or those with less experience (up to 4 years) concentrated on S1 and S2 styles, which may indicate a need to assert authority and maintain control. Education level also proved influential: managers with postgraduate degrees tended to adopt more participatory styles (S2 and S3), while those with high school education showed a preference for the directive style (S1).

The general data analysis points to a leadership that, although demonstrating adaptability in defined scenarios, concentrates its practices on styles S1 and S2. The predominance of the Orientation style (S2) suggests a focus on team development, but the underutilization of the Delegation style (S4) indicates an unexplored potential for employee empowerment. The occurrence of the SP style (No Standard), especially in conflict situations, highlights the need to develop socio-emotional and mediation skills in leaders to ensure more consistent management (Goleman, 1995).

The diversity of styles applied in emergency situations, where S1, S2, S3, and S4 appeared in a balanced way, reveals different perceptions about the team’s maturity to deal with crises. While some leaders centralize decision-making (S1), others trust the team’s autonomy (S4), evidencing a lack of consensus on the best approach under pressure. This variation reinforces the importance of an accurate situational diagnosis, as an inappropriate style in a critical moment can aggravate the problem. Effective leadership is not just about knowing the styles, but about knowing when and how to apply them (Kouzes and Posner, 2023).

The data analysis allowed the subordinates to be classified into maturity levels M1 to M4, with a predominance of M1 and M2 in operational sectors and among younger employees, which justifies the frequent application of styles S1 and S2. Level M3 was identified in experienced professionals who sometimes demonstrate less self-confidence, benefiting from the support of style S3. Level M4, of high maturity, appeared in a few cases, indicating potential for greater application of style S4, which is still underutilized. The presence of style SP (No Standard) signals risks to leadership consistency, potentially undermining team confidence.

It is concluded that situational leadership is a robust and applicable theoretical approach for managing multigenerational teams. The results indicate that the leaders of the studied company apply the principles of flexibility and diagnosis, adjusting their styles to specific contexts. However, the strong concentration on styles S1 and S2, to the detriment of S4, suggests an opportunity for development focused on increasing leaders’ confidence to delegate and empower their teams, promoting greater autonomy. The implementation of leadership development programs is recommended to enhance managers’ diagnostic capacity and encourage them to monitor the evolution of their teams’ maturity, using Individual Development Plans (IDPs) to foster the transition to higher maturity levels. It is concluded that the objective was achieved: it was demonstrated that the leaders of the studied organization adapt their situational leadership styles in a predominantly reactive manner focused on direction (S2), with underutilization of the delegating style (S4), reflecting a perception of intermediate maturity in their multigenerational teams.

References:
Blanchard, K. H. High-level leadership: how to create and lead high-performance organizations. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2004.
Campos, R.; Moura, J. Leadership and digital transformation. Revista Brasileira de Gestão, v. 24, n. 3, 2022.
Chiavenato, I. People management: the new role of human resources in organizations. 4th ed. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier, 2014.
Drucker, P. F. The practice of management. New York: Harper & Row, 1954.
Goleman, D. Emotional intelligence. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva, 1995.
Hersey, P.; Blanchard, K. H. Management of organizational behavior: utilizing human resources. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1969.
Hersey, P.; Blanchard, K. H. Psychology for administrators: the theory and techniques of situational leadership. São Paulo: EPU, 1986.
Hersey, P.; Blanchard, K. H.; Johnson, D. E. Organizational Behavior Management: Leading People. 9th ed. São Paulo: Pearson Education, 2010.
Kotter, J. P. Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 1996.
Kouzes, J. M.; Posner, B. Z. The leadership challenge: how to make the extraordinary happen. 7th ed. Rio de Janeiro: Alta Books, 2023.
Northouse, P. G. Leadership: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2018.
Rodrigues, J. M.; Barros, E. Leadership in the new normal: a study in Brazilian organizations. Revista de Administração Pública, v. 55, 2021.
Schein, E. H. Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010.
Silva, R. O.; Oliveira, C. A. People Management and Generations: challenges and strategies for leading multigenerational teams. São Paulo: Atlas, 2018.
Thommes, M. S. Change of course: how teams build adaptive leadership style transitions in dynamic contexts. SAGE Journals, 2024.

---

Executive summary from the Final Project of the Specialization in People Management from the MBA USP/Esalq

_{Learn more about the course; click here:}