Strengths and limitations of situational leadership theory

HRM

The Pros and Cons of Situational Leadership

Situational leadership has become a generally accepted theory of leadership (Northouse, 2012). However, despite its attractions, it is not a perfect model due to flaws which are present in the underlying assumptions. The aim of this paper is to look at the model of situational leader, defining what it is and the way the theory fits in with practice. The advantages and the disadvantages of the model may then be assessed to demonstrate why and how this is a flawed leadership model.

Situational Leadership Model

In the past, many leadership theories have been developed in order to explain how and why leaders could be effective, with the aim of supporting leadership development. Early approaches, such as Great Man theory, trait theory and behavioral theories examined existing leaders to identify commonalities that may define good leadership, but leaders were to diverse and sufficient commonalities were not found. This lead to the idea that different situations would impact on what type of leadership was needed (Bass, 2008). Hersey and Blanchard (1977) developed the concepts of the lifecycle theory of leadership or situational leader. This theory speculated that the best type of leader was one who would be able to adapt their leadership style to match the situation in which they were leading (Northouse, 2012; Hersey and Blanchard, 1977). Situational influences which can influence the leadership style may include the internal environment, where consideration of issues such as the personality of employees along with their skills/knowledge, as well as practical requirements. A major consideration is the level of development of the employee, assessed along a development continuum (Northouse, 2012). For example, in any situation employees with a low level of relevant skills or knowledge, at an early developmental stage will require a high level of direction, as they develop the leadership style should accommodate the progress and move to a style with a higher level of coaching, and when a mature and fully developed employee is present the optimal style may be the provision low direction and low support; empowering the employee (Northouse, 2012). The employees may move backwards and forwards along the development continuum, and be at different points for different tasks (Northouse, 2012). Leaders adopting situational approach needed to be flexible in order to adapt to the level of support and leadership style that is most beneficial for each employee. It is also assumed that other influences in performance such as commitment and motivation will be associated with the level of development (Northouse, 2012).

Disadvantages (negative position)

The undeniable advantages are also balanced with some significant disadvantages. While the model may have been widely used, it appears that there is only a limited amount of research this has been undertaken in order to justify the model and its assumptions (Northouse, 2012). Where research has been conducted, it is not always found in favor of the model. Vecchio, (1987) undertook research in an academic setting, studying 303 teachers located in 14 different high schools. Measurements were taken to assess the application of the model, with statistical tests indicating that situational leadership theory was only accurate for certain types of employee, especially newer employees (Vecchio, 1987). Other authors have also questioned the underlying basis of the theoretical assumptions, a valid criticism when it is considered that the origins of the model based on "quick management" practices and the desire to get instant results (Graeff, 1997). Even Hersey and Blanchard who developed a model have accepted that there is a lack of supporting research, and reported the need for further research in our own papers (Graeff, 1997). There are even some inconsistencies, is one that is assumed