Some aspects of the Situational Model® conflict with some of my deeply-held values. For instance, the followers’ developmental levels seems based on very simplistic notions of developmental psychology (Moll, 2013; Myers, 2011) and seem ambivalent to issues such as age, professional experience, expertise, and cultural norms. For instance, it seems likely that cultural or religious values could lead some to overstate their commitment and understate their competence in order to promote group solidarity and reduce shame (Augsburger, 1995; Borden, 2008). Likewise, it seems likely that people with high commitment and high competence could be led to project lower levels due to historical or social factors that would cause parts of society to treat them poorly if they were seen as overly compliant with the dominant power structures (Freire & Macedo, 2000). Even aside from the social issues, followers are usually grouped according to role (e.g. “science teachers”), not according to task (e.g. “developing formative assessments using Web 2.0”), and competence and commitment can vary widely on specific tasks even if they are both high regarding the role.
Another of my key values that rubs against the Situational Model relates to the way it assesses leadership style by providing only a fixed number of options. Back in school when given those “Who would you throw off the lifeboat?” questions, I was always the student who argued for finding a way to keep everyone. I tend toward suspicion of either-or answers to complex problems; life simply has too many possibilities. As Northouse points out (Northouse, 2015, p. 102), this biases the results in favor of the situational model and is one of the top criticisms of that model.
With that said, though, I wish I had applied the model several years ago. We had been living in Kyrgyzstan for several years on business visas, but had found our work gravitating more toward populations that would be better served by a non-government organization (NGO, non-profit) model. I registered an NGO and started looking for expatriate and local partners. The NGO’s values, brand, and structure were solid enough that within six months we had a staff of eighteen expatriates and six locals, all fully-funded, and all specialists in some aspect of international development.
At that point, I should have looked closely at the commitment and competence of each person rather than taking them at face value. If I had, I would have noticed that, while Jim’s commitment was over the top, he really needed coaching on cross-cultural issues because his enthusiasm for educational projects scared away local stakeholders. I should have put him on tasks with Will and Carol, who both had a lot of cross-cultural knowledge, but were surprisingly bad at their jobs as project managers because they would rather form relationships than get the job done. Ted and Ellen brought emotional and professional maturity to their role, but they did not put themselves forward as leaders, and I should have relied on them more and at least had them share an office with Don and Andre, who had the tech skills the group needed, but were more committed to developing their skills than to helping the group. I should have directed Will and Carol to coach Jim, and delegated Ted and Ellen the task of supporting Don and Andre. Instead, I should have directed Lilly more (She was fresh out of college and had not held a regular job.), and given a lot more support to Eric and Courtney, who had left professional careers to join the team and were now struggling with their lost identities. Instead, I just coached everyone.
We managed to complete most of the projects, but on smaller scales or longer timelines than we had wanted. We generally worked well together, but that had more to do with their traits than my leadership (People who leave their home countries to work as volunteers tend to value working well with others.). By the end of their one- to three-year commitments, three-fourths of the team left the country, and half of the others moved on congenially to work with other organizations.
The flaws in the Situational Model’s operational definitions, theoretical basis, lack of cross-cultural and psychological foundations, and foundational research all prevent me from embracing it as a model. However, I too often overlook its strongest point: leaders must consider the variations of their followers’ competence and commitment.
References
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 30th Anniversary Edition. (M. B. Ramos, Trans.) (30th Anniversary edition). New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Moll, L. C. (2013). L.S. Vygotsky and Education. Routledge.
Myers, D. G. (2011). Psychology, 10th Edition (10th edition). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and Practice, 7th Edition (7 edition). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.
