The contingency theory as discussed by Fielder ( 1967) states that a leader does not change his or her leadership style, but rather discusses how ” a leader is matched with a situation that fits their style”. This means that for a leader who is “consistent with their behavior” (Fielder, 1967) should be selected for a situation they would be successful in or their situation would need to change to apply to their leadership style for the leader to do well and have a relationship with the follower, Although the contingency theory and situation theory both talk about the leader style, the relationship with the follower and the situation, Fielder discuss how the contingency theory is the opposite of the situation theory which talks about a leader being able to adapt to a situation depending on the behavior they have with the follower.
As it may be known that different people have different leadership styles, the situation can affect the success of the person. Fielder ( 1967) discussed the coworker scale of which a leader is rated on their leadership style. This ranks them on a low to high scale where a low scale shows a leader who is more satisfied focusing on the success of completing a task over their relationship with the follower ,a leader who is on the high scale means the focus is more on the importance of the relationship with the follower over the task in order for their success and person who falls in the middle tends to change styles either way. (Northouse, 2013)
While the relationship between the leader and the follower is important with the contingency theory the amount of control they have is also important. If a leader has a “friendly, cooperative “relationship with the follower, the situation will be good compared to a relationship a leader has with a follower that is “hostile and difficult”, the situation can be bad. These types of situations can be seen in an office setting. Another form of success can be seen when a leader feels a specific task is well organized, straight forward and clear operational plan is created to ensure the success of the leader. In this case, the leader will have a task structure and a better relationship with the follower. (Northouse, 2013) This situation has been seen a lot in the military. When a leader demonstrated this tyle of management, it has been observed to be easier to match the better with situations.
When deciding on what type of leader to select, it is important to know about the three components that help to select the right person for the right situation. (Northouse, 2013) has talked about a favorable situation for a leader which includes establishing a good relationship between the leader and the follower, a strong leader position power and a defined focus on the task. A unfavorable relationship is when these components are demonstrated.
As it can be understood that not every person can fit every situation, it is important that time is taken to uncover the strengths and weaknesses and how well this leader will be able to be productive and motivated to achieve success in their role.
References
Northouse, P.G.(2013. Leadership: Theory and practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Fielder, F.E (1967). Cognitive resources and leadership performance. Applied Psychology: An Interventional review 44(1), 5-28
Tiffany-Kay McCartney
Deanna Nicole Hunt says
Hi Tiffany,
I do agree with you that not every situation can have a perfect leader to carry out the task. What makes a great leader are the ones that can adapt to any situation thrown at them, which is what the situational theory explains. The contingency theory on the other hand states that in order to be an effective leader, every person needs to be matched with his or her perfect situation to do so.
While you did a good job explaining what each theory states, I was a little confused by what you were trying to relay in your blog. When I saw your title “Cognitive theory vs Situational” I thought you were going to show which one you maybe favored or how one of these applied to your life in some way. Other than me wanting to know a little bit more on how these theories applied to you personally, I do feel that you did a good job explaining them both in detail.
Deanna