This chapter focuses on Situational and Contingency Approaches to Leadership. A lot of this chapter is a review, as I'm assuming we have learned many of these theories in LEAD 200 or another course. The section on Situational Focus describes the impact of the social context of leadership, in contrast to the trait or behavior approaches that focus primarily on the leader as a key factor. One aspect of the situation that seems to affect leadership is space and seating arrangements. Usually, the people who sat at the head of the table were leaders of a team. This section goes on to say that this is because there is more eye contact with the other members and therefore the leader has more control of the situation. Moreover, the head of the table offers better access to all team members. When your team/organization meets, where do the leaders sit? And how do the other members arrange themselves? Do you find this seating arrangement to work well for your group? Or do you think another set up would be more beneficial? Explain your reasoning.
Trait Contingency Models are described in this chapter. First, Contingency Model of Leadership effectiveness, as studied by Fielder, is explored. This theory "predicts that leaders who are more relationship oriented will be more effective than task-focus leaders in moderate situational control, whereas leaders who are more focused on task than on interpersonal relationships will be more effective in both high- and low-control situations" (Antonakis 155). Cognitive Resource Theory (CRT) by Fielder and Garcia argues that leaders effectiveness can be predicted on 2 characteristics- intelligence and experience- and the situation. Which of these 2 theories do you find to be more accurate? Why do you think so? Can you think of any examples in your life that points to a leader being more oriented to one or the other?
The second type of theories in this chapter are those that related the leader's behavior to the outcome. The Normative Model of Leadership Decision Making focuses on the interaction between a leader's choice of decision-making strategies and the decision situation. This interaction predicts the quality of the decision and subordinate commitment to the decision. Path Goal Theory involves 4 leadership behaviors: directive, achievement oriented, supportive and participative. Situational Leadership Theory has 4 leadership behaviors- telling, selling, participating, and delegating- depends on whether they complement the subordinates' task maturity (e.g. ability, education, and experience) and psychological maturity (e.g. willingness, self-esteem, and motivation). Which of these theories do you think is the most legitimate? Why? Do you feel that these theories can relate to your leadership experiences?
Have a great Spring Break everyone!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In most of my encounters with leadership, the leader generally stands at the front of the room, however I do have one example of when this wasn’t the case. I agree with the eye contact argument, saying the leader needs visual accessibility to all others in attendance, however during my summer internship we had a particularly difficult group. Two people in particular, disagreed with most of the processes, decisions, and intentions of the majority of the other group members. During these meetings, our CEO sat at the middle of the table, strategically placing herself between these two particular individuals. Her ability to control their interaction proved extremely valuable to the effectiveness of the meeting and eliminated much of the dissent these two individuals tried to bring forth. In addressing situational models, while I think the norm is to have the leader sit at the front, this is not always absolutely necessary and sometimes even not the most effective placement of the leader in the room.
ReplyDeleteI think both of these arguments have valid points, and are dependent on a person’s definition of success/effectiveness. If a task-oriented person can finish a given assignment, but in the process destroys a valuable relationship with a client, is the situation still considered success or the means still effective. And on the other hand, if a relationship-oriented individual has a high ability to adapt, will they run the risk of collaborating too much and thus sacrificing on the original intent of the task they were assigned? I often think of my experience with political campaigns where relationships are extremely important to build up until the last four days of the election. During these days “Get out the Vote” or GOTV, task is the only focus. There is no more time for relationship building because come the first Tuesday of November, the situation is zero-sum; either you have the votes or you don’t. In this case, both aspects are important but the leader needs to make an important distinction between when either strategy may be employed and where most effectively.
I am partial to the Situational Leadership Theory. I think it draws two important distinctions and provides room for growth and movement between the categories. It addresses the need for education as well as the human characteristics necessary to complete the task at hand. I think these theories can defiantly relate to my leadership experience because these two particular characteristics are consistently on my mind when I am presented with a situation. If my leaders are educated about the situation they find themselves in and have the motivation to complete a task, I will approach the situation very differently than if one or both of these elements are missing.
When working with FYE it was common for the group to be in a U shape, and for myself to be at the open end of the U, mostly because I was leading conversations, or talking about what we would be doing. In other groups, it is typical for the leader to sit at what we call the “head” of the table, however contrary to most of the time when I see leaders take what they think is the head of the table, they are incorrect. The head of the table would typically be the one facing the door so that they can see when people enter or leave without turning. Many times I see the person at the opposite end, but everyone gravitates to that end and makes it the head of the table. It really is interesting because when I walk into a new meeting, the first thing I think about is, where do I sit because if I sit too close to the head of the table people might think I’m considering myself too powerful. I think that those who are not the “leader” of the group usually find a way to sit so that the leader feels in that they can see everyone and be in control. I typically prefer circles, so that there is more equality. I think most groups tend to be in a circle or square which seems to work out well. However if you don’t know the group, where to sit becomes a difficult decision.
ReplyDeleteI’m having a hard time choosing only one of the theories to consider more accurate. I believe that they both can be. I feel like both of them have really great qualities. It seems like they could be put together as a form of leadership and work quite well. They don’t really seem to contradict each other in my mind. I think a good leader is relational when they need to be, and task oriented when they need to be (which looks at the situation) and their intelligence and experience makes them able to decide which tactics to use. To me, theories aren’t really about which one is more accurate, but what can you learn from each about how to be a better leader.
Again, I find it difficult to pick one theory over another. However, path goal has never been my favorite theory. I really like the Normative Model and how it looks not only at the decision making strategies but the situation. I also like that it looks at the quality of decision and commitment. If you made a decision but no one is committed to it, really there was no point in the decision and the process to get to the decision was probably faulty. I also think that Situational Leadership Theory has some great ideas as well, so I would pick these two theories. I think that I’ve learned that decisions cannot be made without considering who will be committed to them, and I think a lot about teams, and I know that commitment is a huge part of a team so that draws me to that theory.
Where the leader arranges themselves says a lot about what type of leadership style they use. If a leader stands in front of the room I think it helps them gain power and control. Whenever I am conducting a meeting at work I usually stand in front of the room. I think that this keeps everyone in the group focused and on tasks. I think it works the best when the members in the organization sit facing you, that way the leader can make good eye contact with everyone. I have never had a problem with effective seating. Another seating arrangement that I think would work effectively would be for a group to sit in a circle. Everyone could view the leader and be able to easily converse with each other.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kristi and think that both theories are valid in certain situations. The theory that I agree with more is the contingency model. I think that it is important that leaders treat their subordinates with respect. It is vital that the group stays on tasks, but it is even more important that subordinates trust their leaders. A personal experience of mine illustrates that I work better with this theory. My current boss is someone that I trust and respect greatly. Our relationship helps us get our work done effectively and as a team. She never is one to nag and be worried if we are running behind on a project but rather calm and reassuring that we will get our work done.
Personally I like situational leadership better. I think that it is more effective and helps motivate subordinates better. The four behaviors can be applied to my own leadership style. As a representative of the Australian embassy I use my situational leadership as my leadership style to help convince students to study abroad in Australia. I have to use these behaviors to delegate the event and delegate certain tasks in order to plan study abroad events.
When my groups meet, the leader is always at the front of the room and typically we are circled around but facing the leader. The circle opens up conversation to the room and creates a sense of equality however the leader is using standing while the rest of us are sitting so it creates a dominant presence over the group. It is very effect because we all respect the leader but also each other at the same time.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a leader is developed based on intelligence and experience but also the situation. A leader needs to know what he or she is talking about so the followers will follow. But it also has to be a right situation. For example, I have been an FYE mentor for two years so that creates knowledge and experience for me. But that doesn't make me a leader when the Math Club meets. I have never been in math club so I wouldn't know the first thing to do. So it does take a certain level of knowledge to lead but its a lot situational.
I think that situational leadership is better. I think that one can motivate people better based on that situation. When I was TKE recruitment chair, I used my experience and situation in TKE to help get members to the group. I set up events for the group to recruit members (bowling, dinners, parties) used delegation to run these successfully.
At my job back home, when we have team meetings, we're around a rectangular table, with our boss at the head of the table. Everyone else sits randomly on the two longest sides. Recently, my team has been under supervision of a new boss, who does not understand our work process. I believe that our seating arrangement would be most beneficial if we sat in a circle, so we would all be perceived as equal, and eye contact would be maximum for all. I think this would be better, because there are moments when he is not "leading" the group, since we have more experience and knowledge than he does. When he sits at the head of the table, he puts more pressure on himself. If we sat in a circle, there would be less pressure on him and meetings may run more quickly and efficiently.
ReplyDeleteI find the cognitive resource theory the most effective. I think based on what people have experienced and knowledge they have, that in certain situations, they will be most effective. I think experience and knowledge can make the leader in a situation, but I do believe that whether the person is relationship or task oriented will effect their leading outcomes. I think the situation of the work or team environment will create the leader, whether it is because knowledge, intelligence, or orientation.
Although the Normative Model of Leadership Decision Making seemed inefficient during the class activity, I think it is very important, as it makes you consider your situation and co-workers when making your decision. I think some people are quick to make a decision without realizing their impact on others. I think that people should use this model, or keep it in mind when making decisions globally as well, as people would make more ethical decisions. It relates to my leadership experiences, as I, just as any leader, have made decisions before and it is important to know when to include group members in your decisions and when not to.
My primary group that I am in is the SGA. The president sits at the head of the table and everyone sits down the table so he can see all of our faces. I somehow manage to sit right next to him, but it may have to do with me being a senior or that no one else wants to sit there. I don’t know, but it just happens to work out that way. I think it works out well because our group is made up of 8 people and we all have equal respect for each other. The seating does not make one better than the other.
ReplyDeleteThe Contingency Model of Leadership, for me, makes more sense. If a leader and his/her subordinates have mutual respect – a leader can ease up on being so task oriented and let people take more control. The better the relationship the leader has with his/her subordinates, the more trust will flow throughout the group and it won’t be so structured. As for more task-oriented leaders … they can handle both low and high-control situations because the relationship isn’t the highest priority on his/her list. The leader will likely be a very good delegator and can make sure things will get done without being too involved in forming a relationship with his/her subordinates. As we discussed earlier, the subordinates of a task-oriented leader would likely have more fear in their boss than anything. Which may be what some people strive for.
Situational Leadership Theory is more ligitmate than the other. The fundamental underpinning of the Situational Leadership Theory is there is no single "best" style of leadership. It will always depend on who you are leading and the best way to have the group efficiently work together. I have worked in many different groups and you must take the time to analyze what will be the best way to work within you group. If you can see that everyone is going to be very task-oriented, then don’t worry about trying to figure out how to not hurt someone’s feelings by shutting down their ideas or how to make sure everyone is heard. You can focus primarily on agreeing what will be the best method of accomplishing the goal of success and go for it. If you can see that your group is more focused on making sure everyone is happy and heard, then you may have to take it a bit slower and really figure out what will work best. It will always depend on who is a part of the situation.
Similar to most responses, when I meet with any of my groups we sit at one level and the leader of the group is at another. We usually meet in classroom, so the leader will stand at the podium so everyone can see her. In most of my classes I am used to sitting in a desk with the professor lecturing in the front of the classroom. I like how Shelly actually sits at the same level with us and interacts with us as a class. I remember when I was a fye mentor 2 years ago, I made sure to sit at the same level as my mentees. Although I was in charge of the group and the leader, I wanted to be equal with them so we could have discussions and not make them think I was better than them. At work, I usually see business co-workers coming in for dinner and they arrange themselves by their title. The president of the company or leader usually sits at the end of the table. The way a leader positions themselves during meetings or gathering tells the followers a part of their leadership style. When leaders stand in front of you, they are taking a direct approach at getting things done.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree and say that I think both theories are valid depending on each of the situations. I understand both theories, and say whatever works the most effective for each person is best. I would probably prefer the task-oriented theory over the relational one because I often try to find the best way of completing things and figuring out the steps to get it done. I do however think it is very important for a leader to have a good working relationship with their subordinates. It is crucial that there is a mutual trust and respect for each other.
For myself I think I like situational leadership better. I find it more effective and a helpful tool to motivate your workers. Depending on the situation each person is motivated differently. I find situational leadership can relate to my leadership experience. For example at work, when I train new employees to serve each one is at a different learning spot and has a different way of being motivated and learning the job. I try my best to motivate them and teach the based on how they will be the most successful.
In organizations that I am in it seems like the leader does tend to sit at the head of the table or stand in the front of the room. For the copy editing team meetings for the St. Norbert Times we usually just sit in a circle and the head copy editor sits among everyone else. This could have to do with the group being so small, though, that it is not needed for the leader to physically be at the head or front of the group.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the two theories, I believe a hodge podge of the two together would work just fine. I believe that, depending on a situation, a leader need to decide for him or herself to either focus on relationships within the group or tasks that need to be completed. If the leader has a high amount of intelligence about the subject or has experience with a group, they may be better able to decide what to focus on. It also depends on the situation. Like it states in the book that leaders who are more relationship oriented will be more effective t in moderate situational control, but leaders who are more focused on task will be more effective in high control and low control situations. The leader needs to determine the situation, and then decide what to focus on.
I like the situational leadership theory because it seems very flexible and adaptable in that a leader can change his or her leadership style of delegating, telling, selling, or participating depending on several factors involving the subordinates. It seems like groups that I am involved in this theory, or at least a loose form of it, is used.
In most of the groups I am involved in the leader sits at the head of the table and everyone else circles around. In some cases the leader stands in front from the group to assure everyones attention and focus is on them. I think that what works best depends on what is being discussed as well. If it is more informative, sometimes it is better for the leader to be standing in front speaking towards everyone. Otherwise I find that a circle or U shape is good to generate conversation and discussion. When the leader sits in the middle they can act as the facilitator.
ReplyDeleteI don't prefer one theory over the other but I do think that certain situations require certain leadership styles. Personally I prefer the Contingency model because it focuses more on relationships. It signals that a leader trusts and has faith in their subordinates. Staying on task is important but I think that the quality of the work is improved when positive relational aspects are involved. I've experienced this at work with the different types of managers I have worked for. One was all about results and another was about encouragement. I enjoyed the more low pressure environment that focused on reinforcing behavior. It showed me that she trusted in me doing my job.
To me Situational leadership works well in most situations. I think subconsciously it is how I approach most leadership situations that I encounter. I think t is most effective in finding what works best with different types of individuals. It gets to the core of what is the best motivator given the variables. I have used this in increasing attendance at sorority events I have planned in order o get the most involvement. It varies based on the age and experience of individuals but overall yields the best results.
I've always been one who enjoys a roundtable format for group meetings. Typically during TKE meetings, the president will stand at the podium while the rest of the members are in a circle around the room. This is beneficial because you can see who is talking, and by paying attention, you are respecting those who are talking and put meaning behind their efforts. There have been times when we sit in Cofrin 11 or 15 for meetings, but these meetings become extremely unproductive as nobody pays attention to anyone else and it becomes slightly more difficult to get input from others.
ReplyDeleteI think the Cognitive Resource Theory is much more accurate. While there are some times when I prefer to be the relationship oriented leader, I also strive to be the intellectual and experience defined leader. It would be awful to have a leader who had no idea what was going on with a particular situation and/or didn't know how to properly manage the situation as well. With my job in Tech Support, I am called to be an experienced leader. If I get a call from a consultant, I can't shrug them off and say "Sorry, I dont know". That would be grossly unprofessional.
Both theories are valid because both theories can be applied to any situation. It all comes down to who you are dealing with, and how you want to deal with it.