The Situational Approach to Leadership

In sharp contrast to the heroic model is the situational point of view espoused by some scholars, most notably Jeffrey Pfeffer of Stanford University. To Pfeffer, leadership is an illusion. It is a quality that is attributable to people who are the beneficiaries of unusually favorable external conditions. The general who wins the battle becomes a “great leader,” while the one who loses becomes “the goat.” Similarly, the CEO whose stock price quadruples is a great leader, while we search for deficiencies in leadership talent in one whose stock tumbles. Pfeffer argues that leaders have little or no control over the key variables that determine organizational performance, and that the discretion they do have is severely limited both by the organization, of which they are a part, and by its external context. We attribute causality to leadership because it enhances our feeling of safety and control. Organizations feed this illusion of potency to leadership through elaborate search and selection processes followed by highly visible ceremonies surrounding the change of control.

To put it succinctly, the heroic model would have us believe that great leaders create the situations for which they are remembered, whereas the situational approach would predict that it is these situations that create the illusion of leadership.

There are at least two properties of situations that seem to support the Pfeffer position. Both typically lead to the attribution of leadership qualities in the absence of compelling evidence of the kind of influence in our definition. The first of these is success. George Bush, Sr., attained a personal high in popular attitudes just after the Desert Storm War, as did Colin Powell and Norman Schwartzkopf. Conversely, Jimmy Carter's leadership image was tainted by the chance juxtaposition of helicopters and a sandstorm.

But success or failure are not the only determinants of good leadership. External threat, for which the leader is not responsible, also contributes to the attribution of leadership. This phenomenon is vividly represented in the aftermath of the terrorism of September 11, 2001. The popularity of George W. Bush skyrocketed from a mediocre 50% to an incredible 93%, probably not because of actions on his part but rather because of our need for heroes in times of threat. Similarly, George Pataki, governor of New York State, and Rudy Guiliani, mayor of New York City, experienced similar gains in popularity. To paraphrase Pfeffer, the more powerful the contextual effects on organizations, the more people feel overwhelmed and the greater the need to invent leadership. It is intriguing to speculate how many of those who go down in history as great leaders were simply beneficiaries of situations extremely well suited to the attribution of leadership.

The situational model sidesteps the issues of leader selection and training. Since leadership does not exist except in the minds of followers, technologies for selecting or training leaders are irrelevant. If it has normative value, the situational model is of principal relevance to those desiring to acquire a reputation as a leader. Positions having a high likelihood of success or changing from negative to positive should be sought, whereas those with opposite qualities should be avoided.