I do believe that leadership based on the situation would be a good way to look at things. A great leader of one category does not guarantee them a great leader of another. I have seen some football coaches in high school that do make great teachers, but it does not mean that they would be great at a leadership of a whole city. Each of these areas can mean that a person with different characteristics needs to be put in place of these leadership areas.
According to Northouse, (2013) Contingency Theory has been research many times over the years and it shows validity and reliability for its ability to put the correct person in leadership position (pg. 127). This theory is based on using not just situations to pick the correct leader but also concerned with each person’s particular style; stating that in times of duress, the person will revert back to their natural style of leadership which could actually work against them (Northouse, 2013).
I would agree with this reasoning, for in my experience with the coaches at the high school level of sports is that when they are stressed, they have a tendency to be very harsh on the persons that they are leading. This does not always have a positive affect on the subordinates. Instead of this strategy making the subordinates push and work harder, it can cause them to do just the opposite. An example of this would be putting these coaches in charge of running the city. Their forceful behavior that works in the sport arena, can alienate their subordinates in the city. He/She would be looked at as someone that wants to control what everyone says and does and this person would loose the respect of the people around them and cause possible legal problems for the city.
Also, a person that is a great leader of a city and in times of difficulty, their individual leadership style suits these particular situations allows the issues to get resolved in a way that is best suited for the city as a whole. To put this leader on a sports team as a coach may not be such a good idea. This type of leader may not be able to motivate the players and the players may not respect the leader.
By using this theory, an employer that is looking for a leadership position to be filled can have an individual take an easy assessment called the least-preferred-coworker scale (LPC) in order to find out what the prospective leaders style of leading is (Northouse, 2013). By evaluating the scored, the employer can find out what area this prospective leader would be good at and what they would not be good at in a management job. Scores that are high for LCP have a motivation from the relationship they have with their subordinates; persons low in LCP are task oriented; middle of the road scores are basically equal in both areas (Northouse, 2013).
With this information available, the employer can decide what characteristics are most important to them and who will best fit the leadership role they are looking to fill. As with any style, there will always be persons that do not agree with this style of finding a leader, but the evidence is there that this does work. Not all persons are good in all leadership roles. Some that excel in some will not excel in others. It is important for a company to find the best prospect for their individual situation and hence make the best decision for their company and Cognitive Theory does this for them.
Reference:
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Kristina Kay Piper-osorio says
I am enjoying these most recent chapters we have been reviewing on Style, Situational, Contingency and Path-Goal Theories. These theories seem to have a more practical application to them compared to others. The Contingency Theory does have potential application in the workplace but I think its more cumbersome than say, the Situational or Path-Goal Theories. The Contingency Theory seems to lead me to the conclusion that if a leader doesn’t fit the situation, meaning their LPC doesn’t match well with the subordinate and tasks at hand, then another leader should be placed into that role instead. The Contingency Theory states that leaders should be matched to the appropriate situation to be effective (PSU, L6, p. 3). In the Contingency Theory, leader’s behaviors are believed to be set compared to that in the Situational Theory which believes leader’s behaviors are adaptable. I think that there are set behaviors that every human has established within themselves, but we must learn to adapt or alter these behaviors depending on the situation we are facing, not be moved from it and replaced by someone better apt to handle it. The Contingency Theory has applicable aspects but because of the idea that matching the ideal leader to his/her ideal situation will ensure an effective leadership relationship, I think the cumbersome movement of personnel makes its implementation difficult.
Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2014). PSYCH 485 Lesson 6: Part 1: Contingency Theory. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa14/psych485/001/content/06_lesson/03_topic/02_page.html
Kristina Kay Piper-osorio says
I am enjoying these most recent chapters we have been reviewing on Style, Situational, Contingency and Path-Goal Theories. These theories seem to have a more practical application to them compared to others. The Contingency Theory does have potential application in the workplace but I think its more cumbersome than say, the Situational or Path-Goal Theories. The Contingency Theory seems to lead me to the conclusion that if a leader doesn’t fit the situation, meaning their LPC doesn’t match well with the subordinate and tasks at hand, then another leader should be placed into that role instead. The Contingency Theory states that leaders should be matched to the appropriate situation to be effective (PSU, L6, p. 3). In the Contingency Theory, leader’s behaviors are believed to be set compared to that in the Situational Theory which believes leader’s behaviors are adaptable. I think that there are set behaviors that every human has established within themselves, but we must learn to adapt or alter these behaviors depending on the situation we are facing, not be moved from it and replaced by someone better apt to handle it. The Contingency Theory has applicable aspects but because of the idea that matching the ideal leader to his/her ideal situation will ensure an effective leadership relationship, I think the cumbersome movement of personnel makes its implementation difficult.