Leadership Situations: Adapting Your P and M Emphasis to What the Team Actually Needs

PM Theory establishes that the best overall leadership pattern is high P combined with high M, strong goal-direction alongside strong relational support. But effective leadership isn't the same behavior applied uniformly across all situations.

The most effective leaders read the team and the situation and adjust their emphasis accordingly, leading more heavily from P when direction is most needed, leading more heavily from M when relational repair or safety is the priority.

This article examines how leadership situations vary and how to develop the situational awareness that allows you to lead adaptively.

→ Take the free CommStyle Assessment

Why Situational Adaptation Matters

Research on leadership situational demands has found that different situations genuinely call for different leadership emphases, an idea that builds on earlier contingency approaches to leadership.^[2] A new team needs more P-function behavior than an experienced one, since goals and roles need to be established.

A team under significant stress needs more M-function investment, since relational support becomes more critical when demands are high.

Leaders who apply the same approach regardless of situation tend to be effective only in situations that fit their default style, and developing situational range significantly expands leadership effectiveness.

Situation 1: The New Team or New Role

When a leader is new to a team, both P and M are highly needed but in a specific sequence.

P priority means establishing clear goals, roles, and standards early, since new teams operate with ambiguity that, once resolved, allows the team to focus energy on the work rather than uncertainty about direction.

M priority means investing in relationship-building from the start, since leaders who establish early that they're genuinely interested in the people on their team build a trust foundation everything else is built on.

Studies on new leader transitions have found that leaders who invest explicitly in understanding their team during the first 90 days establish significantly stronger foundations than leaders who move immediately to directing.

The temptation for high-P leaders in new situations is establishing direction quickly without building the relational foundation first; the temptation for high-M leaders is investing in relationships without establishing goal clarity.

Both emphases are needed, with clarity first and depth of relationship built over time.

Situation 2: High Pressure and Tight Deadlines

When the team is under significant deadline pressure, both P and M behaviors are needed in ways specific to the pressured context.

P behaviors include clarifying priorities explicitly, since with everything feeling urgent, what's actually most important; removing obstacles the leader can address; and monitoring progress more actively, not to micromanage but to catch problems early.

M behaviors include acknowledging the difficulty directly, since naming a hard week is more effective than pretending it isn't there; checking in on wellbeing more frequently in a way that signals genuine care; and expressing specific appreciation for effort, not just results.

Research on leadership in crisis situations has found that maintaining both P and M functions under pressure, rather than collapsing entirely into task focus, produces better outcomes, both in results and in team wellbeing.

Situation 3: Addressing Underperformance

When a team member isn't meeting expectations, the response requires carefully calibrated P and M, since too much P without M produces defensiveness and damage, while too much M without P produces neither correction nor real support.

The P component involves being specific and direct about the gap, being clear about what needs to change, and following through.

The M component involves approaching with curiosity before judgment, expressing genuine interest in helping the person succeed, and separating the behavior from the person.

Research on the effectiveness of performance feedback has found that feedback is most likely to produce genuine behavior change when it's specific, supportive, and followed up on.

The M-type leader's temptation is giving feedback so softly the message doesn't land; the P-type leader's temptation is focusing so heavily on the gap that the conversation feels punitive. Both extremes reduce effectiveness.

Situation 4: Team Conflict

When conflict arises within the team, the primary function needed is M, but a specific, active form, not passive warmth.

M behaviors include addressing the conflict directly rather than hoping it resolves itself, creating conditions for each party to be heard, and facilitating understanding, not just agreement, ensuring each party can articulate the other's perspective before moving to resolution.

P behaviors support this by establishing clear expectations about how the team will work going forward after understanding is established, and following up to check whether the conflict has actually resolved.

P-type leaders in conflict situations often move too quickly to solutions without creating sufficient understanding first. M-type leaders may facilitate understanding well but struggle to move to clear conclusions when the conversation is done.

Situation 5: A Team in a Groove

When a team is performing well and in a period of relative stability, the leadership emphasis shifts, not away from P and M, but in how they're deployed. P shifts from establishing direction to refining it, and accountability conversations shift toward growth rather than correction.

M means maintaining the relational investment that created the high functioning, not assuming it sustains itself, and looking for the next level of development for each team member.

High-performing teams can become complacent when leaders reduce both P and M attention, assuming the team will sustain itself. The research is clear that team effectiveness requires ongoing leadership investment, not just investment during early formation or crisis.

Developing Situational Awareness

Read the team before leading it: before any significant interaction, spend a few minutes reading the team's state, energy, focus, and relational temperature, and let this reading inform which emphasis you bring.

Ask, don't assume: the most reliable way to know what a situation needs is to ask "what would be most useful from me right now, more direction or more support?" And debrief your own leadership: after significant interactions, briefly reflect on whether you emphasized what the situation needed and what you'd adjust.^[1]

This article was developed with oversight from a Certified Public Psychologist (Japan). It's intended for informational purposes and doesn't constitute clinical advice.

Frequently Asked Questions

How quickly should I switch emphasis when a situation changes?

Situational shifts are usually gradual rather than instant, so there's no need to dramatically flip your approach the moment circumstances change. Reading the trajectory, is pressure building or easing, is trust growing or eroding, tends to be more useful than reacting to any single day's events.

What if I misjudge what a situation needs?

Misjudgments are common and mostly correctable, since team members often give feedback, directly or through their behavior, that signals when your emphasis isn't matching what's needed.

Treating your read of a situation as a working hypothesis to adjust, rather than a fixed diagnosis, makes these corrections easier to make.

Can I apply different P and M emphasis to different individuals within the same team?

Yes, and this is often necessary, since team members can be at different stages of development or facing different circumstances even within the same overall team situation. The situational principles described here apply at the individual level as much as the team level.