“People ask the difference between a leader and a boss…. The leader works in the open, and the boss in covert. The leader leads and the boss drives.” -Theodore Roosevelt
—
Contingency and Situational approaches are the same yet opposite. They are the same because both of them stress the importance of situations; they are opposite because they hold different expectations on leaders. Situational approach believes a leader should adapt to the situation at hand. Contingency Theory believes the right leader should match the right situation.
Fielder’s Theory seems to lack flexibility; he believed that we as leaders are naturally fixed in how we handle situations and that if we want to change how the situation is handled, we have to change the leader (Northouse, 2013). For leaders that fall in the middle of the LPC scale, it could be unclear which style of leader they are. This is a disadvantage of the Fielder Theory because there is a lack of flexibility in the leadership style.
All leaders have behavior tendencies, which are naturally in their DNA and seemingly unchangeable (Redmond, 2013). I agree with the sentiment that “some leaders are more effective than others”. I also believe, however that it varies by situations. Many examples come to mind as I relate these approaches to real life – I will share one.
One of my high school teachers, Prof. Bob, had a PhD in chemistry and more than 10 years of experience teaching science. In the middle of my senior year (12 th grade), he was elected, by the school faculty, to perform the role of the teaching supervisor of the senior class – the person previously in the role had resigned. Since Prof. Bob was seemingly smart, effective, efficient and well respected, the faculty assumed that he would also excel in this role.
Although he was great at teaching, this new and unexpected job, as a supervisor, was not one he was trained or prepared for. After a few weeks in the role, student subordinates were not satisfied with his management style and, as a result, attendance rates at his meetings began to decrease. Subordinates complained that he was “all over the place” and did not do a good job captivating his audience. Some attributed this to him not being comfortable or prepared for a management role, even though he was great at teaching.
It appeared as if the school did not choose the right person for the supervisor role. I now believe it could have been because of Prof. Bob’s lack of knowledge and training in supervising others.
Reference:
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (Sixth Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Penn State World Campus (2013). PSYCH 485 Lesson 6: Contingency and Path Theories. Retrieved on October 1, 2013, https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/su13/psych485/001/content/06_lesson/03_topic/03_page.html
MATTHEW JAMES BORGIA says
Matthew Borgia
PSYCH 485
10/6/13
It is possible that his ten years of experience gave the ability to easily ascertain what motivated his students. Therefore his was able to come across as a excellent teacher, always meeting the needs of his students in a classroom setting. The possible problem with your teacher in his new setting was that he could not switch to a leadership style that best suited the needs of the students that motivated them in this setting. He might have had difficulty located what was missing from the subordinates environment in his new supervisory role, and because of this equally unable to help, remove an obstacle, or supplement what’s missing. As the new leader in a supervisory position instead of a teaching position he was unable to show the new group of subordinates what kind of outcomes they would get from their inputs. (Northouse, 2013)
Reference:
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (Sixth Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.