When I read Contingency Theory, I remembered when in third grade my mother was my teacher. This was a very disturbing experience to me, since my mother did not allow me to call her “mother” during class hours. But, my impression was that, the rest of the students were very receptive of my mother’s teaching style. She had a consistent behavior, typical of the Contingence Model (Penn State), as soon as we entered the classroom. Then, she changed her role of mother to become a teacher with an authoritative style. In other words, she established principles and had high expectations of appropriate behavior. Even though she was warm and supportive with students, she made it clear what behaviors were acceptable and not acceptable inside of the classroom (http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/pte/311content/classmgt/mgtstyle.html). Being in that classroom gave me the opportunity to see my mother from a different perspective. Looking back, I think she was the right leader in the right situation.
The contingency theory is a leadership theory with strong empirical support concerned with both, styles and situations. This approach matches leaders to adequate situations – or changes the situation to fit the leader’s style – in order to achieve successful leadership (Northouse, 2013). The theory states that some leaders are better in some situations than others in which they may not be that successful. In addition to that, the more control a leader has, the more favorable she or he perceives the situation (Penn State). According to Fiedler’s Contingency Model, Situational Favorability signals the amount of control a leader has over the followers. Fiedler classifies three components of situational favorability: leader-member relations, task structure, and position power (Penn State). My mother had position power, and I experienced it.
The reason I can say my mother had position power is because she was a schoolteacher. She had control over her followers. She had a rank and authority. My mother could administer reward and punishments. She also conducted follower performance. All these elements match Fiedler’s “positions power” description (Penn State). From what I could experience, children saw her as an authoritative figure. Similarly to authoritative parenthood, she was demanding but also responsive (Siegler. 2006). She was exigent with her students, but very often she also rewarded them with affection and valued every student’s effort.
The class was responsive to her leadership style, and everybody had respect for her. Even today on Facebook, I receive complements from people who still remember her with respect and affection as “the sweet Miss. Elvira”. It makes me think her leadership style was right for the group and the situation. The contingence theory says that the right leader must be in the right situation to lead successfully (Penn State). Based on my perception, her situation favorability was high because she attained a good leader-follower relationship (Penn State). In addition to that, she had defined tasks – another prescription of the Contingency Model. This was because she was assigned the same group of students from the moment they entered 1st grade until they finished 3rd grade. Therefore, she was very knowledgeable and experienced about the class program and the students. And lastly, and as I previously explained, she had a strong leader position power (Penn State). All these elements made up a favorable situation (Penn State), which allowed her to teach and set clear rules and boundaries while achieving a balance between the demanded rules and the rewarding nurturing (https://tle.wisc.edu/teaching-academy/fall-kickoff-symposium).
Considering she was a 1st, 2nd and 3th grade teacher for more than eighteen years, I believe my mother was the right leader for that age group. I could experience that she truly enjoyed teaching. She loved working with children and knew how to communicate with them very effectively. The fact that her students remember her with respect, gratitude and love also signals that she might have been a successful leader.
Reference:
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (5th edition). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Penn State World Campus (2012). PSYCH 485 Lesson 6: Contingency and Path Theories. Retrieved on August 30, 2012, from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa12/psych485/002/content/01_lesson.html.
Siegler, R. S., DeLoache, J. S., & Eisenberg, N. (2006). How children develop (2nd ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.