Limitations of The CVT Model
Like all models, the CVT Model also has its practical limitations and contextual applicability. Understanding these constraints is crucial for effective leadership and followership development.
Honest Discussion of Limitations
Unfortunately, this model is not universally applicable in all situations because there are contexts when silence is the most appropriate conflict resolution. Examples include when the decisions are more trivial or when speaking up may slow progress. The CVT Model may also not be appropriate in politically sensitive or hierarchical environments because people may face real consequences for speaking up. Furthermore, there is a risk of overusing the framework and interpreting every silence as an issue when that is not the case. The model also assumes a level of self-awareness that not all people have naturally. This can make applying the model more difficult for people who cannot accurately identify what causes their hesitation.
Nuances and Subtleties Explained
A crucial nuance of the CVT Model is how it differs from, but still builds on, the concept of psychological safety. Psychological safety directly relates to if people feel able to speak, but this model extends beyond this concept, focusing on if people actually do speak in real scenarios. A key difference is that psychological safety is primarily an environmental condition whereas the CVT Model is a framework for the decision-making process that occurs within an individual. For instance, psychological safety explains how safe an environment feels, but fails to account for why someone may still remain silent even in a supportive environment. The CVT Model does well in addressing this gap with the introduction of internal factors, like self-doubt and perfectionism, as powerful influences on one’s behavior as well. It also introduces a third dimension of situational stakes that psychological safety does not include. Even when both internal confidence and team safety are present, people may still choose silence if they perceive the issue at hand to be unimportant and not worth disrupting the group dynamic. Finally, psychological safety is often viewed as a responsibility for leaders to create for teams. However, the CVT Model distributes responsibility between both the leaders and the followers. Followers must also recognize and manage their own internal voice thresholds. The CVT Model ultimately explains why individuals still don’t voice concerns even in psychological safe spaces and how to change it.
A nuance of this model is that one’s thresholds can change and shift within the same meeting depending on tone, energy, and changing group dynamics. For instance, an individual may start the discussion feeling confident and comfortable enough to share their concerns. However, if their comment is dismissed, their internal state layer intensifies, raising their voice threshold for their future contributions. The reverse can also occur, where once someone's disagreement points are validated, their voice threshold lowers and they are more willing to participate in constructive conflicts.