SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP RESEARCH PAPER

A p p l y i n g a M o d i f i e d S i t u a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p M o d e l t o R e s i d e n t i a l G r o u p C a r e S e t t i n g s

M c N o w n J o h n s o n University o f S o u t h Carolina

A B S T R A C ~ T h i s p a p e r offers a n e w p e r s p e c t i v e o n s t a f f i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h c h i l d r e n a n d youth in care. T h e a u t h o r p r o p o s e s a f o u r p a r t , t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l d e s i g n a d a p t e d from e m p i r i c a l l y - b a s e d models found in the literature on organizational l e a d e r s h i p , parenting, and group development. A review of those sources suggests that, whereas each of four "leadership styles" might be used appropriately in one situation or another, there is one style, combining control and empathy, that is best suited to meet the needs of the majority of children and youth in care most of the time.

Several years ago I took a job as director of a small residential group care program offering services to pre-adolescents (ages 10 through 14). I inherited a "point and level system" very similar to those criticized in t h e l i t e r a t u r e (e.g., VanderVen, 1995). I appreciated t h e child care workers' abilities to successfully control groups of act- ing out youngsters, b u t I also believed t h a t t h e y were being unneces- sarily rigid. My professional background led m e to be sympathetic with t h e social workers on t h e staff, who preferred a less directive approach. This worked well enough in individual t h e r a p y sessions but did not provide m u c h of a model for t h e "other 23 hours" (Trieschman, Whittaker, & Brendtro, 1969). As we considered switching to a t e a m model (Garner, 1994) t h a t required social workers to "cover" in t h e cottage and classroom a n d child care s t a f f to lead group problem solv- ing sessions, I struggled with t r y i n g to reconceptualize our interven- tion approach a n d t h e s t a f f members' roles. The model I propose in this article is a n u p d a t e d version of w h a t I developed a t t h a t time. This revised version has benefitted significantly from collegial feed- bacl~

I begin this article with a brief review of how point a n d level sys-

Correspondence should be addressed to Miriam McNown Johnson, College of Social Work, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208; e-maih miriam.johnson@ sc.edu.

C h i l d & Y o u t h C a r e F o r u m s 2 7 ( 6 ) , D e c e m b e r 1998 © 1998 Human Sciences Press, Inc. 383

384 Child & Youth Care Forum

tems are used in residential group care, t h e n present an overview of t h e other conceptual models of h u m a n interaction t h a t directed m y thinking. Next I p r e s e n t t h e new model, along with how it can be applied in residential group care. Finally, I discuss limitations of t h e proposed model.

P o i n t a n d L e v e l S y s t e m s

Point and level systems a r e pervasive in residential settings for children and youth in North America (VanderVen, 1995) and are prev- alent in a variety of psychiatric settings, often supported by t h e dic- tates of m a n a g e d care systems t h a t require short-term t r e a t m e n t a n d measurable outcomes. Sometimes referred to as token economies, point systems a r e planned reinforcement programs in which individ- ual clients can e a r n points (generalized conditioned reinforcers) for performing desired behaviors (Sundel & Sundel, 1993). Points are ex- changed for a variety of r e w a r d s a n d privileges. In m a n y residential group care a n d t r e a t m e n t programs client behavior is continually monitored, points are a w a r d e d (or t a k e n away), a n d privileges or con- sequences (negative sanctions) a r e delivered or withheld based on t h e point total or average. In h e r discussion of point and level systems, VanderVen (1995) notes t h a t t h e "privileges ~ withheld are often activ- ities t h a t would automatically be experienced daily in a normalized environment (p. 347).

When a level system is used, these privileges are grouped into cate- gories or levels, with each h i g h e r level permitting more freedom a n d privileges. In both community a n d residential care settings, levels a r e usually thought of in t e r m s of a unidimensional, sequential pro- gression. The actual n u m b e r of levels or stages m a y differ considera- bly across a variety of contexts. Generally, the progression is limited to a m e a s u r e of increasing competence/compliance (or, more fre- quently in care settings, to decreasing incompetence/noncompliance).

Hierarchies a n d concomitant levels of responsibility, authority, sta- tus, and perquisites are found in virtually every informal organiza- tion in our society and in many informal ones as well. From kinder- garten through graduate school, in the church and in the military, in labor unions and in fraternal lodges, in civil service and in Fortune 500 companies, individuals are assigned to arbitrarily delimited, ranked categories. Progressing through these categories is not strictly tied to quantifiable daily behaviors, of course, but advancement usu- ally is dependent on meeting pre-established standards. Gradual pro- motions are expected and occasional demotions are not unheard of, In residential settings, the specific criteria for moving from one level to

M i r i a m M c N o w n J o h n s o n 385

a n o t h e r m a y be complicated, b u t t h e b a s i c / d e a of a level system is not foreign to e i t h e r children or staff. I n residential care settings, level systems m a y be used appropriately to establish goals and moni- tor client progress (VanderVen, 1995), b u t instead t h e y are often used simply to restrict t h e choices of both clients a n d staff.

Several authors (e.g., Armstrong, 1993; Fox, 1994; VanderVen, 1993; VanderVen, 1995) have been justifiably critical of point and level systems as t h e y a r e misused in group care facilities, noting t h a t (in application i f not in theory) t h e y t e n d to focus on control a n d com- pliance r a t h e r t h a n on t r e a t m e n t or remediation. Common problems with implementation of these approaches include difficulties in find- ing and providing effective rewards and failure to identify and rein- force positive b u t relatively subtle behaviors (Stipek, 1993). Astute observers in t h e cottage m a y note t h a t youngsters who are doing w h a t t h e y "should" (waiting patiently, listening, thinking, showing initiative) are often ignored. The only reinforcers troublesome chil- dren and youth receive are encouragement from peers and negative sanctions from staff. Among problems noted by Goldfried and Cas- t e n g u a y (1993) a r e a failure to t a k e into account individual differ- ences, a tendency to lapse into a n overly directive approach, and a failure to a t t e n d to therapeutic relationships, including the thera- pist's hostile reactions to t h e client. Their criticism echoes Van- derVen's (1993) description of t h e rigidity, punitiveness, and "implicit hostility towards children" t h a t evolves in m a n y point and level sys- tems. Token economies are r a r e outside of institutional settings; t h e use of points in behavior programs is faulted for being "artificial." In practical terms, t h e effectiveness of reinforcement is often short-lived a n d generalization (transfer) is limited (Stipek, 1993).

There is a wide variety of models t h a t a r e used to describe a n d u n d e r s t a n d how people interact with each other and/or to prescribe how t h e y should. Over-reliance on one model, learning theory, a n d its application, behavior modification, has resulted in t h e proliferation of point and level systems t h a t appear ill-suited to m e e t the needs of m a n y children. Consideration of other models contributes both to a critique of c u r r e n t approaches a n d to t h e development of alternatives.

O t h e r M o d e l s o f H u m a n I n t e r a c t i o n

One might t h i n k of a staff person's role in residential group care as a combination of t e a m leader, group therapist, a n d p a r e n t surrogate. Conceptual theories about how these different roles function appear in t h e journals a n d texts in several distinct fields. There a r e t h r e e conceptual models of h u m a n interaction t h a t I found particularly use-

386 Child & Youth Care Forum

ful in thinking about alternatives to traditional point-and-level-sys- t e m paradigm. The first model describes p a t t e r n s of behavior of mem- bers in groups. The second describes four styles of parenting. The third, Hersey and Blanchard's (1982) Situational Leadership, is used both to describe four p a t t e r n s of follower behaviors and four p a t t e r n s of l e a d e r behaviors. I have used figures to summarize and illustrate each of these.

Stages of Group Development

A well known stage theory of group development is Tuckman and Jensen's (1977) five-stage model. In t h e forming stage, m e m b e r be- havior can be characterized as tentative a n d polite. Conflict appears in t h e storming stage, as group members begin to disagree a n d to criticize each other. During t h e next stage, norming, t h e group be- comes more cohesive; mechanisms are established for resolving con- flict and working together as a t e a m to accomplish the group's pur- pose. At t h e performing stage, group m e m b e r s reach the peak of t h e cooperative efforts and concentrate on t a s k completion. In t h e ad- journing stage t h e group comes to a n e n d a n d members deal with separation issues. I have diagramed t h e first four of these stages in Figure 1.

F i g u r e 1 S t a g e s o f G r o u p D e v e l o p m e n t

3. Norming

4. Pe~om~lg

2. Storming

1. F ~

Source: based on Tuckman & Jensen (1977)

M i r i a m M c N o w n J o h n s o n 387

Stages of Follower Development

Blanchard (1985) noted t h a t t h e stage of development of a follower (employee) for a n y particular t a s k is d e t e r m i n e d by a combination of competence a n d commitment. Competence is a function of knowledge and skills. Commitment is a combination of confidence a n d motiva- tion. In t h e i r Situational Leadership model, Hersey a n d Blanchard (1982) identified four levels or stages of followers (see Figure 2). T h e r e is a n implied progression from Level 1 to Level 4, b u t individ- uals or groups m a y slip back to earlier levels of functioning. Blan- chard (1985) provided t h e following labels and descriptions for these four stages:

1. Enthusiastic beginners are excited to get started and to learn. They have low competence but high commitment.

2. Disillusioned learners have some competence b u t lack commitment to t a k e responsibility. They need both direction and support.

3. Reluctant contributors are competent b u t have variable commit- m e n t due to a lack of motivation or confidence.

4. Peak performers a r e both competent a n d motivated to t a k e respon- sibility. They are "psychologically mature."

F i g u r e 2 Stages of Follower Development

3. Reluctant contributors

4. Peak pefom~m

2. Di~llusloned learners

1. Enthusiastic becnn~

(h~gh)-.-t.evel of Competence---Oow)

Source: adapted from Hersey & Blanchard (1982)

388 C h i l d & Youth C a r e F o r u m

Parenting Styles

Beginning in t h e 1950s, researchers found t h a t t h e r e were stable characteristics on which p a r e n t s differed and t h a t these characteris- tics were associated with relatively stable differences in their children (cf. Baumrind, 1971; Baumrind, 1989; Becker, 1964; Darling & Stein- berg, 1993; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Schaefer, 1959). Factor analysis revealed two independent dimensions of parenting styles: a contin- u u m with warmth/acceptance/responsiveness on one end a n d hostil- ity/rejection on t h e other, and a n o t h e r continuum with control/restric- tiveness/demandingness on one end a n d autonomy/permissiveness on t h e other. A p a r e n t might score high on both dimensions, low on both, or high on one a n d low on t h e other.

The four possible combinations are displayed in Figure 3. The origi- nal diagram, as presented by Maccoby a n d Martin (1983), h a s been rotated 90 degrees clockwise. These styles have been described as fol- lows:

1. Authoritarian parents score low on measures of acceptance a n d high on m e a s u r e s of control. They a r e demanding and power asser- tive with minimal w a r m t h a n d responsiveness; their discipline style is strict a n d punitive.

F i g u r e 3 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f P a r e n t i n g P a t t e r n s

J

uninvolved ~ s p a w . - a n

Source: adapted from Maccoby & Martin (1983)

M i r i a m M c N o w n J o h n s o n 3 8 9

2. Authoritative p a r e n t s score h i g h on both dimensions. T h e y are emotionally w a r m . T h e y also set clear s t a n d a r d s a n d expect ma- t u r e b e h a v i o r b u t encourage verbal give-and-take.

3. Indulgent~permissive p a r e n t s score h i g h on acceptance a n d low on control. T h e y are w a r m a n d tolerant; t h e y set few rules a n d u s e little p u n i s h m e n t .

4. Neglecting p a r e n t s are d i s e n g a g e d on both dimensions.

T h e s e p a r e n t i n g styles h a v e been u s e d as predictor (independent) variables in correlational s t u d i e s of a wide v a r i e t y o f child/adolescent characteristics, i n c l u d i n g self-concept, psychosocial m a t u r i t y , m o r a l development, i n d e p e n d e n c e , social skills, cooperation w i t h a d u l t s a n d peers, cognitive competence, a n d academic success. M a n y of t h e s e s t u d i e s h a v e b e e n s u m m a r i z e d by Decker (1964), Maccoby a n d Mar- t i n (1983), a n d P u t a l l a z a n d Heflin (1990). Flaws in m u c h of t h e e a r l y r e s e a r c h on p a r e n t i n g styles included r e p e a t e d failure to t a k e into account s u c h potentially i m p o r t a n t variables as developmental level, gender, a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l / c u l t u r a l factors. More r e c e n t efforts, nota- bly t h o s e of L a w r e n c e Steinberg a n d his associates, h a v e e x a m i n e d t h e influence o f p a r e n t i n g styles across ethnicity, socioeconomic sta- t u s , a n d family s t r u c t u r e (e.g., Steinberg, Mounts, L a m b o r n , & Dorn- busch, 1991) a n d across g e n d e r a n d age (Baumrind, 1989).

The r e s u l t s of 25 years of r e s e a r c h on p a r e n t i n g style d e m o n s t r a t e c o n s i s t e n t l y positive outcomes for t h e a u t h o r i t a t i v e p a r e n t i n g style. C h i l d r e n o f a u t h o r i t a t i v e p a r e n t s a r e competent, socially responsible, a n d self-confident. I t a p p e a r s t h a t a p a r e n t i n g a p p r o a c h t h a t com- bines clear limits w i t h w a r m caring is best. I n contrast, children of a u t h o r i t a r i a n p a r e n t s are obedient, b u t lack social competence, h a v e low self-esteem, a n d m a y be aggressive. C h i l d r e n w i t h permissive p a r e n t s t e n d to be i m p u l s i v e a n d irresponsible. C h i l d r e n whose par- e n t s are u n i n v o l v e d are less c o m p e t e n t t h a n t h e i r peers a n d lack e m o t i o n a l control a n d f r u s t r a t i o n tolerance.

Situational Leadership Styles

B u i l d i n g on t h e earlier w o r k o f r e s e a r c h e r s a n d theorists such as Lewin, Lippitt, a n d W h i t e (1939), Bales (1950; 1955), a n d Fiedler (1964) a n d on s t u d i e s of l e a d e r s h i p conducted a t t h e Ohio S t a t e Uni- versity, H e r s e y a n d B l a n c h a r d (1982) concluded t h a t m o s t l e a d e r ac- tivities can be located along two dimensions: t a s k a n d relationship. L e a d e r s m a y b e h i g h on b o t h d i m e n s i o n s , low on b o t h dimensions, or h i g h on one a n d low on t h e other. T h e s e two d i m e n s i o n s a n d four r e s u l t i n g styles are i l l u s t r a t e d by t h e four boxes i n F i g u r e 4. U p d a t - i n g a n e a r l i e r model f o u n d i n t h e H e r s e y a n d B l a n c h a r d m a n a g e m e n t

3 9 0 C h i l d & Y o u t h C a r e F o r u m

F i g u r e 4 L e a d e r S t y l e s

| C o ~ Z ~

0 ~ ) - - - F o c t m on t a ~ :~: , ~ 9 ~

Source: adapted from Blanchard (1985)

text (1982), Blanchard (1985, p. 3) re-labeled and defined these basic leadership styles as follows:

1. Directing. "The l e a d e r tells followers w h a t , how, w h e n , a n d w h e r e to do various tasks. Problem-solving a n d decision-making are ini- t i a t e d solely b y t h e m a n a g e r . Solutions a n d decisions are an- nounced; c o m m u n i c a t i o n is largely one-way, a n d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n is closely s u p e r v i s e d by t h e leader."

2. Coaching. The l e a d e r still provides a g r e a t deal o f direction, b u t ~he o r s h e also a t t e m p t s to h e a r followers' feelings a b o u t decisions as well a s t h e i r ideas a n d suggestions. While two-way communica- tion a n d s u p p o r t are increased, control over decision-making re- m a i n s w i t h t h e leader."

3. Supporting. "The locus o f control for day-to-day decision-making a n d problem-solving s h i i ~ f r o m l e a d e r to follower. T h e leader's role is to provide recognition a n d to actively listen a n d facilitate problem-solving/decision-making on t h e p a r t of t h e follower."

4. Delegating. Followers a r e allowed to " r u n t h e i r own show."

Stogdill (1974) s u m m a r i z e d over 25 m a n a g e m e n t r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s t h a t i n d i c a t e d t h a t one l e a d e r s h i p style, Coaching, w a s likely to opti- mize a n u m b e r o f effectiveness criteria. O t h e r such s t u d i e s (Butler & Reese, 1991; Graeff, 1983; Larson, H u n t , & Osborn, 1976; Nystrom,

M i r i a m M c N o w n J o h n s o n 391

1978), while s u p p o r t i n g t h e one-best-style-approach, indicated t h a t i t w a s a Directing style t h a t h a d t h e s t r o n g e s t positive effect on em- ployee performance.

H e r s e y a n d B l a n c h a r d (1982) n o t e d t h a t m o s t leaders h a v e a "pre- ferred" or p r e d o m i n a n t l e a d e r s h i p style a n d u s e i t consistently across different situations. (This is s i m i l a r to t h e p a r e n t i n g model described above.) T h e p r e m i s e o f t h e i r model, however, is t h a t n o one style o f l e a d e r s h i p is always "best." I n t h e i r opinion, t h e k e y to successful l e a d e r s h i p lies in t h e a c c u r a t e a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e level o f d e v e l o p m e n t of followers in a n y given s i t u a t i o n a n d t h e ability a n d willingness to v a r y leadership style w h e n necessary. I n c o n t r a s t to t h e s t r o n g sup- p o r t for t h e one p a r e n t i n g style (Authoritative) approach, Hersey a n d B l a n c h a r d propose a m o r e fluid model, w i t h leaders moving back a n d forth b e t w e e n styles as d i c t a t e d by t h e n e e d s of t h e i r followers. T h e y do w a r n a g a i n s t s u d d e n d r a m a t i c shifts in style, however. For exam- ple, a leader m i g h t shift from Style 3 back to Style 2 i f followers fal- ter, b u t leaders definitely s h o u l d n o t a l t e r n a t e b e t w e e n Style 1 a n d Style 4.

A Note A b o u t the Figures

A s y n t h e s i s of t h e s e figures i n s p i r e d t h e n e w model p r e s e n t e d be- low. T h e r e a d e r should note, however, t h a t t h e four-box figures pre- s e n t e d so far i m p l y a g r e a t e r simplicity a n d similarity a m o n g t h e s e m o d e l s t h a n m a y be w a r r a n t e d . F o r example, F i g u r e s 2, 3, a n d 4 re- flect dichotomous m e a s u r e s o f a t t r i b u t e s t h a t have, in reality, u n d e r - l y i n g continuities. I n o t h e r words, one should probably t h i n k o f t h e characteristics listed as r a n g i n g from m i n i m a l (or "low" or "some" o r "variable," to u s e Hersey a n d Blanchard's words) to h i g h or s u b s t a n - tial, r a t h e r t h a n being a b s e n t or p r e s e n t . Also, F i g u r e s 1 a n d 2, clearly i l l u s t r a t e a s e q u e n t i u m of four stages of behavior develop- m e n t , p r e s e n t i n g t h e m i n a linear sequence. I n contrast, F i g u r e 3 i l l u s t r a t e s p a r e n t i n g styles t h a t are a s s u m e d to r e m a i n relatively c o n s t a n t across time. F i g u r e 4 shows a c o n t i n u u m , w i t h r e c o m m e n d a - tions for m o v e m e n t i n both directions.

Proposed Model

Like H e r s e y a n d B l a n c h a r d , I a s s u m e t h a t a single a p p r o a c h does n o t w o r k well in all situations. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e r e is empirical evidence s u p p o r t i n g t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t one a p p r o a c h (the Authorita- tive style) does s e e m to w o r k b e s t for p a r e n t i n g m o s t children, a n d possibly one l e a d e r style (Coaching) w o r k s b e s t for m o s t supervisors.

392 C h i l d & Y o u t h C a r e F o r u m

I n t h e model p r e s e n t e d here, I a t t e m p t to i n t e g r a t e t h e "one best" a p p r o a c h h y p o t h e s i s w i t h t h e flexible, "situational" a p p r o a c h hypoth- esis. I do t h i s by u s i n g a n o n s y m m e t r i c a l model t h a t incorporates b o t h Directing a n d S u p p o r t i n g styles. I t also recognizes t h a t t h e r e are s i t u a t i o n s w h e r e a less b a l a n c e d style m a y be m o r e appropriate. The k e y here, as in t h e H e r s e y a n d B l a n c h a r d S i t u a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p model, is for t h e s t a f f m e m b e r s to m a t c h t h e i r styles to t h e children's situations.

I believe t h a t consideration o f t h i s m o d e l m i g h t b r i n g t h e following benefits:

- - i n c r e a s e d a w a r e n e s s b y s t a f f m e m b e r s o f t h e i r own p r e f e r r e d lead- e r s h i p style a n d a n i n t e r e s t i n l e a r n i n g a n d practicing o t h e r styles;

- - a p p r e c i a t i o n o f t h e v a l u e of others' p r e f e r r e d styles; - - i n c r e a s e d sensitivity to t h e c h a n g i n g n e e d s o f clients, b o t h as indi-

v i d u a l s a n d as groups; a n d - - i n c r e a s e d willingness on t h e p a r t o f s t a f f m e m b e r s to a d j u s t t h e i r

behaviors to m e e t t h e c h a n g i n g n e e d s o f individual clients, a n d o f client groups.

This new model is i l l u s t r a t e d in F i g u r e 5. I h a v e r e t a i n e d t h e four cells, b u t r a t h e r t h a n copying t h e equal-sized s q u a r e s i n t h e models discussed previously in t h i s paper, t h e second cell is s u b s t a n t i a l l y larger. This d i a g r a m s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y of r e s i d e n t s can be f o u n d here, in S i t u a t i o n 2, m o s t o f t h e time. I t also s u g g e s t s t h a t w h e r e a s each o f t h e f o u r l e a d e r s h i p styles m i g h t be a p p r o p r i a t e some o f t h e time, t h e m o s t broadly applicable style combines s t r u c t u r e a n d e m p a t h y . T h e details o f t h e m o d e l a r e e l a b o r a t e d below.

S i t u a t i o n 1. M a n y n e w l y a d m i t t e d c h i l d r e n fit here. Experienced direct care staff in r e s i d e n t i a l t r e a t m e n t s e t t i n g s often call t h e first few days or w e e k s a f t e r a d m i s s i o n "the honeymoon" period. I n o t h e r words, t h e children a r e enthusiastic beginners. T h e y are e a g e r to please. T h e y do n o t n e e d a lot o f e n c o u r a g e m e n t to tackle assigned t a s k s . They d o n e e d t h e specifics o f "what, how, w h e n , a n d where" expectations, a n d lots o f supervision. S i t u a t i o n 1 could also describe i n s t a n c e s w h e r e longer t e r m r e s i d e n t s a r e facing new experiences or c h a n g e s in r o u t i n e (a field trip, for example).

S i t u a t i o n 2. Most r e s i d e n t s , of course, are disillusioned leaders who, as a group, s p e n d t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e i r t i m e in care f u n c t i o n i n g a t stage two, storming. "They a r e testing," we say; t e s t i n g t h e rules, t e s t i n g limits, t e s t i n g t h e m s e l v e s , t e s t i n g us, b u t mostly t e s t i n g to see i f anybody cares e n o u g h to k e e p t r y i n g w i t h t h e m .

Youngsters in t h i s s i t u a t i o n r e q u i r e s t a f f responses t h a t incorporate large a m o u n t s of both directive a n d s u p p o r t i v e behavior. A Coaching

Miriam McNown Johnson 393

F i g u r e 5 S i t u a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p i n R e s i d e n t i a l G r o u p C a r e

Situation 3. Regnant is trusting Staff are supporting

m Situation 4 . ( l Resident is

perform~g Staff are pulling

back

Situation 1. Resident is

°honeymooning" Staff are directing

Situation 2. Resident is testing Staff are coaching

~gh)

l e a d e r s h i p style "encourages two-way c o m m u n i c a t i o n [and] h e l p s build confidence a n d m o t i v a t i o n on t h e p a r t of t h e follower, while k e e p i n g responsibility for a n d control over decision-making w i t h t h e leader" (Blanchard, 1985, p. 6). Obviously, t h i s m e a n s i n t e n s i v e inter- v e n t i o n - - w h i c h is w h y t h e job o f successfifl care providers is so de- m a n d i n g .

Situation 3. Those children a n d y o u t h in a norming stage deserve to h a v e a response from s t a f f t h a t is supportive b u t n o t overly control- ling. T h e y are reluctant contributors. T h e y k n o w w h a t t h e y should be doing b u t are n o t always m o t i v a t e d to do it. According to B l a n c h a r d (1985, p. 6), in t h i s s i t u a t i o n t h e l e a d e r n e e d s to "open u p communica- tion" a n d to " s u p p o r t followers' effort to u s e t h e skills t h e y a l r e a d y have"; t h e key roles o f t h e l e a d e r a r e "listening a n d facilitating."

Situation 4. F o r r e s i d e n t s i n S i t u a t i o n 4, s t a f f can begin to disen-

394 Child & Youth Care Forum

gage a n d provide only minimal direction. These youngsters are r a r e peak performers. (Many residents never reach this level, of course, b u t can be appropriately discharged a t earlier stages to their families or to other less restrictive settings t h a t can provide t h e continuing s t r u c t u r e and support t h e y require.) Blanchard (1985, p. 6) noted t h a t since Stage 4 followers "are psychologically m a t u r e , t h e y do not need above average ~mounts of supportive behavior." Of course these young people (like t h e r e s t of us) continue to appreciate recognition of a job well-done. P e a k performers, however, are not dependent on the appraisal of others either to evaluate or to reinforce t h e i r actions. I f done in other situations, a cutback on socioemotional support could appear to be punitive. To clients in Situation 4, being left alone is positive reinforcement and confirmation of competence.

A p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e M o d e l t o R e s i d e n t i a l G r o u p C a r e

I believe t h a t m a n y of t h e employees in programs employing point a n d level systems use a Directive leadership style. ("Stop hitting him! You're restricted to your room for t h e r e s t of t h e day.") They act like A u t h o r i t a r i a n parents (demanding, power assertive, a n d often puni- tive). VanderVen (1995) f u r t h e r describes this as a uni-diroctional en- vironment: t h e authority, content, a n d direction all come from t h e adults (p. 363). These staff members, who a r e constantly vigilant to "catch" a n d to t a k e away, set up a n adversarial relationship t h a t is road by the children as a n o t h e r experience of rejection (VanderVen, 1995, p. 350). Clearly, t h e children are not receiving t h e emotional support t h e y need.

A significant minority of staff might be using Style 3 ("You seem to be feeling p r e t t y a n g r y right now. Do you w a n t to t a l k about it?"). H e r s e y and Blanchard (1982) noted t h a t w h e n a leader s t a r t s out with a Supporting approach, "it is much more difficult to use other styles l a t e r . . . . " (p. 256). These staff m e m b e r s are not providing t h e s t r u c t u r e most residents need. (I have watched a cottage group disin- t e g r a t e into chaos w h e n a well-meaning b u t inexperienced a n d per- missive social worker was asked to t a k e charge for a few minutes while t h e child care worker stepped out.)

The model I propose suggests t h a t most of t h e time staff should be using a n approach t h a t combines Directing a n d Supporting styles. T h a t is because t h e majority of children reflect Situation 2. A Style 2 response might be "We have a rule here against h u r t i n g others. Let's find a b e t t e r w a y to express your anger." There is both s t r u c t u r e (that behavior isn't allowed), a n d e m p a t h y (I u n d e r s t a n d your feelings).

Situation 2 is a good place to "catch residents being good," to focus

M i r i a m M c N o w n J o h n s o n 395

on restitution r a t h e r t h a n punishment, and to encourage clients to substitute the use of a formal problem-solving venue or grievance pro- cedure in place of acting out t h e i r r e s e n t m e n t of authority. Situation 2 might also be a good place to introduce contingency contracting (Sundel & Sundel, 1993) as a w a y to open up channels of communica- tion, to begin to involve residents in t h e decision-making process, a n d to encourage cooperation. The behavior contract requires negotiation, which softens t h e child's perception of being controlled and offers t h e staff m e m b e r s a n opportunity to present t h e rationale behind t h e i r demands. In presenting strategies for avoiding power struggles, Harsch (1983/84, p. 266) noted t h a t "it is vital to emphasize m u t u a l interest." She also suggested t h a t t h e worker "acknowledge resistance with empathy"; this clearly fits well with t h e Coaching technique of a Style 2 leader.

With children in Situation 3, skillful staff members have already established rapport. In other words, t h e youngsters t r u s t these adults and believe t h a t they really care about them. These staff possess ref- erent power (French & Raven, 1959); t h a t is, r a t h e r t h a n depending on coercion to influence residents' behaviors, t h e y are able to "use t h e relationship to persuade" (Harsch, 1983/84, p. 266). This is a good place to employ h u m o r to defuse anger, to rely on social r a t h e r t h a n tangible reinforcers, to t r y cooperative (group) incentive structures, to emphasize positive expectations, a n d to actively involve clients in shaping decisions t h a t affect t h e m as a group.

Staff m a y seldom see residents in Situation 4 unless t h e y work in a program preparing youth to move into i n d e p e n d e n t living. By defini- tion, clients in this situation a r e almost r e a d y to function without t h e help of staff. R a t h e r t h a n "delegation," subtle guidance and consulta- tion are probably a b e t t e r description of the appropriate staff role.

Returning to Situation 1, one might ask if a Directing style (and by implication, perhaps, a points a n d levels approach) is appropriate. VanderVen (1995) has suggested ways t h a t such models can be nor- malized and individualized. The presence of adult control need not exclude empathic understanding. In advocating t h e use of a Directing style during t h e "honeymoon" stage I do not m e a n to suggest t h a t s t a f f be cold or indifferent. My model presumes t h a t t h e r e are times w h e n a predominantly directive (or a predominantly supportive style) might be best. Hersey a n d Blanchard (1982) did not address the ques- tions of w h e t h e r t h e presence of some level of control is a necessary precondition for effective socioemotional support and w h e t h e r t h e presence of some level of socioemotional support is a necessary pre- condition for effective control. I believe t h a t t h e y are necessary, a t least in a residential group care setting.

396 Child & Youth Care Forum

L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e M o d e l

I a m a w a r e t h a t t h e p r o p o s e d m o d e l is s u b j e c t to c h a l l e n g e s b a s e d on practical, c o n c e p t u a l , a n d e m p i r i c a l considerations, n o t t h e l e a s t of w h i c h is a n e e d for e m p i r i c a l t e s t i n g .

T h e m o d e l fails to a d d r e s s one o f t h e m a j o r s h o r t c o m i n g s o f t h e original S i t u a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p model. H e r s e y a n d B l a n c h a r d (1982) h a v e b e e n criticized for a s s u m i n g t h a t e a c h s u b o r d i n a t e in t h e w o r k g r o u p is f u n c t i o n i n g a t t h e s ~ m e level. B u t l e r a n d R e e s e (1991) a n d Vecchio (1987) s u g g e s t e d t h a t in a c t u a l w o r k s i t u a t i o n s t h e h e t e r o - g e n e i t y o f followers' r e a d i n e s s m a y a d v e r s e l y affect a m a n a g e r ' s abil- i t y to follow t h e p r e s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e S i t u a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p model. I n a w o r k setting, o f t e n t h e r e will b e a m i s m a t c h o f l e a d e r s t y l e a n d follower n e e d for a t l e a s t s o m e g r o u p m e m b e r s . This p r o b l e m also will b e p r e s e n t in m o s t r e s i d e n t i a l g r o u p c a r e s i t u a t i o n s . C l i e n t g r o u p s in r e s i d e n t i a l c a r e a r e m o s t o f t e n o p e n - e n d e d , so o n e m i g h t e x p e c t to find y o u n g s t e r s a t v a r y i n g levels o f f u n c t i o n i n g w i t h i n e a c h g r o u p a n d g r o u p s t h a t do n o t c l e a r l y reflect t r a d i t i o n a l s t a g e s o f develop- m e n t .

I h a v e glossed o v e r w h e t h e r t h i s m o d e l is d e s i g n e d to b e a p p l i e d to i n d i v i d u a l s or to g r o u p s or t o b o t h . I b e l i e v e it c a n b e a p p l i e d to indi- viduals. P e r h a p s it c a n b e u s e d w i t h g r o u p s o f r e s i d e n t s o n l y w h e n t h e m e m b e r s a r e f u n c t i o n i n g a t t h e s a m e s t a g e o r w h e n t h e y a r e in t h e s s m e "situation." I n r e s i d e n t i a l s e t t i n g s , s t a f f d e a l w i t h c h i l d r e n in g r o u p s all t h e t i m e , a n d c e r t s i n l y t h e y do n o t all fit n e a t l y i n t o t h e s t a g e s or s i t u a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d h e r e . T h e e m p h a s i s on S t y l e 2, Coach- ing, in t h i s m o d e l s u g g e s t s t h a t i t w o u l d b e t h e s a f e s t "default" selec- tion for c h i l d r e n in m i x e d g r o u p s . T h i s is n o t a n i n s i g n i f i c a n t point.

M a n a g e m e n t t h e o r i s t s h a v e criticized H e r s e y a n d B l a n c h a r d ' s Situ- a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p a s b e i n g o v e r l y simplistic. I t h a s b e e n called " t h e l e a s t complete" o f t h e m a n y a v a i l a b l e m o d e l s o f s i t u a t i o n a n a l y s i s ( B u t l e r & R e e s e , 1991). A t t h e o t h e r e n d o f t h e c o m p l e x i t y c o n t i n u u m is Y u k r s (1989) f r a m e w o r k , w h i c h i n c l u d e s e i g h t l e a d e r c h a r a c t e r i s - tics, f o u r t e e n m a n a g e r i a l s t y l e s , e i g h t s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s , six inter- v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s , a n d five e n d - r e s u l t v a r i a b l e s . W i t h i n a g r o u p c a r e s e t t i n g , o n e is l i k e l y to e n c o u n t e r d i f f e r e n t b u t e q u a l l y complex con- tingencies. O n e o f t h e s e m i g h t b e t h e i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e a g e r a n g e o f t h e r e s i d e n t s a n d t h e s a l i e n c e o f t h e staff. F o r e x a m p l e , t h e p r e - a d o l e s c e n t clients i n t h e p r o g r a m I d i r e c t e d w e r e j u s t b e g i n n i n g to s w i t c h a l l e g i a n c e s f r o m i m p o r t a n t a d u l t s in t h e i r lives to t h e i r p e e r group. M o s t o f t h e m w e r e still i n t e r e s t e d i n w i n n i n g t h e a p p r o v a l o f s t a f f m e m b e r s . F o r t e e n a g e r s w h o a r e focused on t h e r e a c t i o n s o f peers, socioemotional s u p p o r t f r o m s t a f f m a y b e less effective. O t h e r s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s m i g h t i n c l u d e r e s i d e n t s ' p e r c e i v e d locus o f con-

M i r i a m M c N o w n J o h n s o n 3 9 7

trol, previous experiences w i t h a d u l t s in positions o f authority, t h e n a t u r e o f t h e '%ask" a t h a n d , t h e potency o f r e w a r d s a n d p u n i s h - m e n t s , t h e level o f h e a l t h or dysfunction o f t h e p e e r group, a n d t h e s t r e s s f u l n e s s o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t .

C o n c l u s i o n

P o i n t a n d level s y s t e m s a p p e a r to limit s t a f f to j u s t one of several possible i n t e r v e n t i o n styles for w o r k i n g w i t h c h i l d r e n who h a v e a va- r i e t y o f needs. More a t t e n t i o n to o t h e r approaches, particularly one t h a t i n t e g r a t e s s t r u c t u r e a n d e m p a t h y , is w a r r a n t e d .

R e f e r e n c e s

Armstrong, L. (1993). A n d they call it help. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bales, R. F. (1955). The equilibrium problem in small groups. In A. P. Hare, E. Borgatta

and R. F. Bales (Eds.), Small groups: Studies in social interaction. New York: Knopf.

Barnes, D. (1988). Good parenting. I n R. W. Small, F. J. Alwon, and H. W. Maier (Eds.), Challenging the limits o f care (pp. 29-44). Needham, MA: Trieschman Center.

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current p a t t e r n s of p a r e n t a l authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph, 4(1), p a r t 2.

Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing competent children. I n W. Damon (Ed.), Child develop- ment today and tomorrow (pp. 349-378). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Becket, W. C. (1964). Consequences of different k i n d s of p a r e n t a l discipline. I n M. L. Hoffman and L. W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review o f child development and research. New York: Sage.

Blanchard, I~ H. (1985). S L II: A situational approach to managing people. Escondido, CA: Blanchard Training and Development, Inc.

Butler, J. I~, Jr., & Reese, R. M. (1991). Leadership style and sales performance: A t e s t of t h e situational leadership model. Journal o f Personal Selling & Sales Manage- merit, 11(1), 37-46.

Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487-496.

Fiedler, F. E. (1978). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness, I n L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 149-190). New York Academic Press.

Fox, L. E. (1994). The catastrophe of compliance. Journal o f Child and Youth Care, 9, 13-21.

French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. I n D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: I n s t i t u t e for Social Re- search.

Garner, H. G. (1994). Teamwork in human services: Models and applications across the life span. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Goldfried, M. R., & Castonguay, L. G. (1993). Behavior therapy: Redefining strengths a n d limitations. Behavior Therapy, 24, 505-526.

Graeff, C. L. (1983). The situational leadership theory: A critical view. Academy o f Management Review, 8, 285-291.

Harsch, B. (1983/84). Power struggles between child care worker and youth. Child Care Quarterly, 12, 263-268.

398 C h i l d & Y o u t h C a r e F o r u m

Hersey, R, & Blanchard, K. H. (1982). Management of organizational behavior: Utiliz- ing human resources. (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Halt, Inc.

Larson, L. L., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (1976). The g r e a t hi-hi leader behavior myth: A lesson from Occam's Razor. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 6 2 8 - 641.

Lewin, I~, Lippitt, R., & White, R. (1939). P a t t e r n s of aggressive behavior in experi- mentally created "social climates." Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-299.

Maccoby, E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family. Parent- child interaction. In R Mussen a n d E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 4: Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.

Nystrom, R C. (1978). Managers and the hi-hi l e a d e r myth. Academy of Managemeat Journal, 21,325-331.

Putallaz, M., & Heflin, A. H. (1990). Parent-child interaction. In S. Asher and J. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 189-216). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schaefer, E. S. (1959). A circumplex model for m a t e r n a l behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 226-235.

Steinberg, L., Mounts, N. S., Lamborn, S. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Authoritative p a r e n t i n g and adolescent adjustment across varied ecological niches. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1, 19-36.

Stipek, D. J. (1993). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice. (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Stegdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York: The F r e e Press. Strudel, S. S., & Sundel, M. (1993). Behavior modification in the human services (3rd

ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Trieschman, A. E., Whittaker, J. If., & Brendtro, L. I~ (1969). The other 23 hours:

Child care work in a therapeutic milieu. Chicago: Aldine. Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small group development re-

visited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 419-427. VanderVen, I~ (1995). "Point and level systems~: Another way to fail children and

youth. Child & Youth Care Forum, 24, 345-367. VanderVen, K. (1993). Point and level systems: Do they have a place in the group care

milieu? R & E: Research and Evaluation in Group Care, 3, 20-23. Vecchio, R. P. (1987). Situational leadership theory: An examination of a prescriptive

theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 444-451. Yukl, G. (1984). Managerial leadership: A review of theory a n d research. Journal of

Management, 15, 251-289.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.