Being aware of contexts is always important in understanding a number of phenomena and deciding how to act accordingly. In the various setups of a workplace where different types of employees and personalities meet and potentially clash, it would help to have a handy framework that can inform their management. The situational approach takes a primary consideration of the situations involved in particular workgroups and environments. It specifically looks at two factors: leadership styles and the development levels of the employees. These two factors are analyzed in terms of the spectrum of relationships that they can have.
Northouse discussed four leadership styles—the directing, coaching, supporting and delegating styles (2016). These approaches can be differentiated from one another by observing the corresponding directive and supportive behaviors that each leader has to exhibit. Directive behaviors rely more often on one-way communication, “what is to be done, how it is to be done, and who is responsible for doing it” (p. 94). On the other hand, supportive behavior “involve two-way communication and responses that show social and emotional support to others” (p. 94). Standing at extreme opposites is the directing style which involves high directive and low supportive behavior and the supporting style which involves low directive and high supportive behavior.
Similarly, there were four development levels detailed for the employees or followers. Two categories—level of competence and commitment—shape these levels. D1 pertains to low competence and high commitment up to D4 which corresponds to high levels of both competence and commitment (p. 95). While the approach is not without its strengths, I wish to focus more on its weaknesses as I try to relate it to an actual experience.
It can be argued that while both categories defined for leadership styles and development levels work in a “developmental continuum” (p. 97) rather than in a stable or strictly step-by-step manner, it still lacks flexibility in order to cover the numerous interactions and possible relationships in a workplace or organization. This can be trying especially in the contemporary times when there is an emphasis on a more flexible workplace where certain hierarchies have a deserved stigma. The textbook asserts “leader flexibility” (p. 99) as one of the viable traits of the approach but the same flexibility was neither identified nor elaborated for the followers. Essentially, a barrier between leaders and followers is still in place. Generally, this does not suit with contemporary values attributed to collaborative practices or teamwork.
Also, be cautious in adjusting “the prescriptions of the model” and its vaunted flexibility. Matching the leadership styles with the development levels is not comparable to answering a matching type examination where one item from the right side exactly fits with a single item from the left. In the context of workplaces or organizations, members can exhibit characteristics identified with more than just one development level. Similarly, leaders can exhibit traits that are found in more than one style. Which, the categories developed by the situational approach may not satisfy all types of behavior exhibited by either followers or listeners.
As I have seen in my personal experience, there are countless followers who surpass or do not fit the development levels sketched by the theory. There will be followers who will show high competence but low commitment or some competence but high commitment. The textbook already identified the lack of consideration given to demographic factors (p. 101) but even more than this is the lack of attention given to other factors such as the professional background of individuals, their social status and their overall outlook on life. These more abstract elements can determine the ways they view and act. I have been with group members whose display of behavioral responses cannot be reduced to categories of commitment and competence.
The Situational Approach is a promising tool in analyzing leadership skills. To further improve its claims, troubleshooting some of the theory should be in order. The general claims must be tested against real-life accounts and operations to see their effectiveness. Specifically, clarifying the types of leaders and the behavior of followers is of primary importance. Then look at the diverse ways by which they interact with each other can properly follow.
Reference
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.