Essay on Contingency Theory of Leadership

3) Contingency approach to leadership-this theory refers to the group atmosphere and to the degree of confidence, loyalty, and attraction the followers feel about their leader. If certain favourable situations occur then there has been a positive relationship between the followers and the leader which means that the task was clearly defined and there is a clear leader position power.

Situational leadership theory is when a leader adapt’s to the situation and the management styles to the behavioral needs of the individual or group. Trait approach leadership gives more credence to the qualities and traits that people are born with that make them natural born leaders.

Situational leadership has very little in common with the other models mentioned herein. This model revolves around the leader changing leadership behaviors to meet the needs in relationship to the follower (Kouzes, 2003, p. 111). The difference between situational leadership and charismatic, servant, and transformational leadership is the lack of an organizational vision and the empowerment of the followers. Situational leadership uses followers based on their readiness level that relate to their ability and willingness to complete the task (Wren, 1995, p. 208). This aspect coupled with the leader’s task and relationship behavior is used in relation to the

This paper will address why situational leadership theory is useful and relevant in developing an effective leadership culture. In addition, it will also discuss the three theories of situational leadership and what is considered to be the strengths and weaknesses of each theory when leading staff in the organizational environment.

Johansen, B. P. (1990, Spring). Situational Leadership: A Review of the Research. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 1(1), 73-85.

Both Fiedler’ model and LMX theory have strength and weakness. Fiedler’ model emphasizes the importance of both situation and leader’s characteristics in determining leader effectiveness. It stimulates a great deal of research and inspires the formulation of alternative contingency theory. On the weak side, the Fiedler model sometimes fails to reflect the personality traits that it intends to reflect. It has also gained criticism because of its implications on replacing the leader as the only way to solve the mismatch between leader orientation and unfavorable situation. The method of measuring

A leader type personality is great at organizing groups. On the playground as a child, a leader was the person who determined what games everyone would participate in. After deciding, everyone would follow his command. In business, these are the folks who now coordinate large groups of employees in a

Leaders have a “the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of a vision or set of goals” (Robbins & Judge, 2007, p. 402). In the past leaders have been described by certain traits or characteristics. These traits can help an organization identify potential candidates who may be strong leaders. Later behavior approaches of leaders were identified that could be taught. In short, leaders could be made. Situations have an impact on which leader behaviors will be most effect at any given time. Several contingency theories have been formulated over the years to identify how situations influence leadership behavior. Each style has strengths and

Situational leadership, developed by professor Paul Hersey and author and consultant Ken Blanchard. Their approach was based off of a 1967 article by W.J. Reddin called The 3-D Management Style Theory. In his article, Reddin discusses the need to have different styles based on the demands of the leader. A leader needs to be flexible in their approach to meet the needs of the job, their superior and their subordinates (1967). Hersey and Blanchard progressed this theory by introducing the Situational Leadership II model. Their model breaks leadership into four different styles, and how a leader must alter their approach in supporting and directing their subordinates based on a given situation. These styles are directing (S1), coaching (S2), supporting (S3) and delegating (S4). The model also focuses on the development level of the subordinates by categorizing them between low (D1), moderate (D2 and D3) and

According to Blank et al. (1990), as leader task and relationship behaviours match follower readiness the “effectiveness” of this behaviour will be established in follower performance and satisfaction with the leader (p. 584). Consequently, an appropriate test of SLT would be to examine matches of leader task and relationship behaviour and follower readiness in “different types of organizations” and at different levels within the organization (Norris and Vecchio, 1992, p. 333). A greater understanding of matches would validate the theory and contribute to the understanding of situational leadership

The Contingency Theory applied to factors unique to each situation to determine whether specific leader characteristics and behaviors will be effective. Researched findings credit Fiedler 's contingency theory as the first to specify how situational factors interact with leader traits and behavior to influence leadership effectiveness. This theory suggests high interest in the situation determines the effectiveness of task- and person-oriented leader behavior.

The situational leadership model was developed by two authors, Ken Blanchard, and Paul Hersey in the year 1969. These authors based this model on the concept that leadership should adapt to different management practices and approaches to fit different situations and surpass any diversity of their encounters (Lussier & Achua, 2010). In particular, this model provides guidance on how to analyze a situation, choose effaceable strategies and adopt the most appropriate leadership style. Apparently, the two developers of the model researched and found that, given some case, leadership may fail to accomplish some goals due to adopting single

I appreciate your brief summary of situational and contingency leadership comparisons but feel there additional similarities that can be pointed out. First, both theories are rather prescriptive in nature, meaning both have behaviors that can be categorized. In the case of the situational theory, it states that the leader adjusts their behavior based the directive need and supportive need of their subordinate, which relies on a four quadrant guide (Northouse, 2013, p. 101). Similar in the contingency theory, is the Lease Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale, where the leader’s task and relationship motivation are rated. Another similarity is that in both approaches the results of the “scale” drive a particular action.

Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Theory (SLT) asserts that a leader’s effectiveness is dependent upon the readiness, or ability and willingness, of the leader’s followers to complete a task. This leadership style is an amalgamation of task-oriented and relationship-oriented characteristics that are employed depending upon the situation and the followers involved. According to the SLT, as followers increase in readiness the leader’s style is to adapt accordingly (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009).

Situational Leadership is also called as Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory. Paul Hersey the author of "Situational Leader" and Ken Blanchard the author of " The One Minute Manager" are the one who introduced this theory (Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory, 2010-2015). The principle behind this theory is that every theory is not perfect in itself and the effectiveness of the theory is determined by the situation (Kreitner, 2013, p. 472). One of the important lesson that I have learned till this day is no one can be prepared for the upcoming problems. Problems may have same nature but may be different in the way it has to be solved. For instance: A Leader may motivate an employee by increasing salary but the same tactics may not work for another employee. Another employee may be seeking challenging job which may influence him/her to