A few decades ago, the perfect manager’s manual was written on a card: a grid of clear rules, a single guideline and a promise of absolute fairness. To lead a team, you just had to apply the same method to everyone. “Treating everyone equally” was then the absolute dogma, the guarantee of flawless organizational justice.
Then the world of work fell apart. The massive arrival of teleworking, the clash of generations, aspirations for better mental health and the quest for autonomy have shattered this rigid framework. Today, the modern manager finds himself at the crossroads of two apparently irreconcilable philosophies: on the one hand, global managementguarantor of strategic alignment and collective cohesion; on the other, the situational and individualized managementadvocating agility, tailor-made and listening to unique needs.
So, should we decide? Should we choose between the rigor of a universal framework and the flexibility of tailor-made management? Investigation into a trade-off at the heart of managerial priorities.
Global management: the glue of culture and organizational justice
Global management is based on a founding principle: consistency. This involves defining unified processes, shared values and a clear strategic vision for all employees. In large groups as in fast-growing SMEs, this approach remains the essential guarantor of fairness.
When the rules of the game are the same for everyone – whether it be promotion criteria, remuneration policy or annual objectives – the feeling of organizational justice is strengthened. Employees know what to expect, which considerably limits resentment linked to perceived favoritism.
A study conducted by the McKinsey Global Institute underlines that companies with a highly structured and homogeneous managerial framework display 30% greater execution agility during strategic transformation phases. For what ? Because clarity of processes avoids wasted energy and simplifies decision-making.
However, taken to the extreme, global management quickly shows its limits. Applying a uniform rule to individuals with varying skills, maturity and personal contexts can be destructive. By wanting to treat everyone in the same way, we risk frustrating the most autonomous profiles by excessive framing, while leaving those who need close support to their own devices.
Situational management: the art of daily adaptation
Faced with these rigidities, situational management – a concept originally theorized by Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard – has found a second lease of life. The idea is simple but demanding: the management style must adapt to the level of maturity (skill and motivation) of the employee facing a given task.
A young recruit will need a style directive Or persuasiverich in structuring and explanations, while a seasoned expert will flourish in a style delegate Or participatoryfocused on confidence and autonomy.
This personalization responds to a strong societal expectation: employees no longer want to be perceived as simple cogs in a well-oiled machine, but as individuals with their own specificities. The investigation Global Human Capital Trends from Deloitte shows that organizations that promote personalized HR and management approaches see a 47% increase in employee engagement.
“Managing situationally means accepting that what worked yesterday with Pierre will not necessarily work today with Sophie, or even tomorrow with Pierre on a different project,” summarizes a change management consultant.
However, tailor-made has its share of pitfalls. The first is managerial exhaustion: individualizing the relationship with ten or fifteen employees requires considerable energy and time. The second is the risk of perceptual bias: granting flexibility to one person may be perceived by others as an unjustified privilege, thus undermining team cohesion.
Two approaches to the realities of hybrid work
The rise of hybrid working and distributed teams has reinforced this dilemma. How can we maintain a feeling of collective belonging when employees no longer share the same spaces or the same hours?
- Overall management side: It sets the essential base. It is the teleworking charter, common collaborative tools, corporate rituals (monthly masses, seminars) and the clear definition of deliverables. Without this global foundation, the company is governed as a nebula of free electrons without common direction.
- Situational management side: He manages the human factor on a daily basis. One needs a quick telephone call every morning so as not to feel isolated, the other prefers total autonomy over his week. One is going through a complex personal period requiring a temporary reorganization of their schedules, the other is looking to improve their skills on new subjects.
According to recent work by the Harvard Business Review on leadership in a hybrid environment, the most successful managers are those who manage to combine very high clarity on the overall objectives (the “what”) with great flexibility on the individual methods of execution (the “how”).
The verdict: towards a hybrid model, the “flexible framework”
Should you choose? The answer is clearly no. Opposing global management and situational management is a strategic error. True managerial excellence lies in the art of articulation.
The challenge for managers and HR managers consists of building a “soft frame” model (Tight-Loose-Tight):
- Set the overall framework (Tight): Unambiguously define the company’s values, the long-term vision, the collective strategic objectives and the ethical or legal rules negotiable by each person. This is what creates the feeling of fairness and direction.
- Allow autonomy of execution (Loose): Give latitude to the local manager so that he can adapt his style (support, autonomy, emotional support) according to the personality, level of expertise and constraints of the employee.
- Evaluate on the results (Tight): Maintain equivalent standards for everyone regarding the expected results, regardless of the paths or individual arrangements made.
In conclusion: moving from the role of conductor to that of conductor
The manager of tomorrow is neither a bureaucrat blindly applying general regulations, nor a free electron going on a permanent case-by-case basis. He is more like an orchestra conductor: the score is the same for everyone (the overall framework), but he knows that he does not address the first violin and the percussionist in the same way (situational management).
Ultimately, global management provides safety and meaningwhile situational management provides motivation and performance. It is precisely in this balanced tension between the collective and the individual that the future of work is taking shape.
