This chapter looked at contingencies, contexts and situations - which all mean generally the same thing, with certain, somewhat overlapping distinctions. These three terms can range from gender and culture, to organizational climate and group composition. The authors and the researchers all seem to take different views of what each term means exactly and address them in different ways. For example, one theorist defined context as an external component surrounding a phenomenon, however, others argued that gender, which is internal, can function as a context or as a contingency, as well, in influencing leadership. If you had to define each of these terms - contingency, context, and situation - differently, how would you differentiate them? What is inherently similar about them?
The chapter also address two different categories of how leadership can be assessed or defined. The first is the relationship between leader traits and the situations and outcome; the second is leadership behaviors, the situation, and the outcomes. The authors made it a point to emphasize that leader traits are directly related to personality, where behaviors function more indirectly. On one hand, I find it a little strange that they would make such a distinction between traits and behavior because it would seem that as functions of personality (although to varying degrees) they would go hand in hand. Later on, however, they did make distinctions between ideal and typical behaviors and perceptions, as well as what the situation dictates. What do you think about this distinction? Are traits and behaviors two related to be separated, or is the situation powerful enough to modify leader behavior, despite inherent traits?
One point in the chapter that I liked was the concept of in-match and out-of-match leaders. Though this concept was in the section about leader traits, I think it pertains to leader traits, situation, AND behaviors. In addition to that, the idea of interaction and perception on the leader and subordinate ends are important in this match. This got me wondering whether the subordinates should change for the leader, the leader should change for the subordinates, or there should be compromise. What is your opinion? Before answering that, however, think about the points that the author makes about the different criteria of goal-achieving. Is quality more important than relationships in the group, and what are the resources available? Given that, is there a universal answer to my question?
This chapter was very complex, and went through a lot of theories and conceptual frameworks. While there were methodological flaws in some, and lack of evidence in others, each still had components that I'm sure we've all seen as tried and true. Some of them were prescriptive as opposed to descriptive, in order to guide behavior rather than just explain it. Is one better than the other? What are some key components of the models we've been exposed to that you feel are most important in terms of constructing frameworks for the topic(s) discussed in this chapter?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I defintly think a situation is powerful enough to dictate a leaders behavior. Think of your own life and how your communication is based on situtions. For example if you are in a situation where there are many prestigious adults present you definity would not only change your verbal communication behaviors but your non verbal as well. An example involving leadership could be you are leading a project for small children your leadership skills and actions would be very different compared to if you would be leading a group of adults.
ReplyDeleteJust breifly thinking I think being a leader is the ablility to be able to be like a Cameleon. You need to be able to change given certain situations. Although I definitly think the followers should not be the ones to change, both should be able to reach a happy medium.
I agree with Angela in wondering if subordinates should change for the leader, the leader should change for the subordinates or there should be change coming from both areas. I think that as Jenessa states there should be a happy medium. Just like in a friendship people have to give a little to get a a little. If one is giving more than the other it is not fair for many reasons.
DeleteAlso agreeing with the above posts situation is a very big part of how a leader leads. Depending upon who the followers are and the type of situation that the leaders and followers are in is puts a tremendous impact of how a leader will act. If it is a school project or just a project outside of class, the same leader could lead in completely different ways.
Although traits and behaviors are very related, I believe they are also separable. If a certain situation is powerful enough to either a leader or follower, it will cause the person to lead. An example would be if a subordinate in an organization felt passionate about an event being put on such as a Breast Cancer Research Fundraiser, they may become a leader instead of the actual leader. The same goes for the leader, if they feel strongly about the event and the subordinates do not, they will still lead. I really believe that different situations bring out the best/worst in us, (hopefully good leadership traits) and that the situation really does matter.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a goal in any situation/organization is that there should be a compromise between the leader and the subordinates. However, the leader should somewhat change for the subordinates, especially if the leader is new and the subordinates have been there for a period of time.
I liked how this chapter was prescriptive along with descriptive. It is beneficial to learn how to make theories work, not just what they do.
If I had to differentiate the three terms I would think that contingency is the overall big picture. When I think of contingencies I think of both internal and external factors that untimely effect you as a leader. When defining context and situation I think they are two of the same. Context goes hand and hand with the situation. There are things in a context such as emotions and surroundings that impact a certain situation between individuals.
ReplyDeleteI believe a situation can be powerful enough to modify a leader’s behavior. In any particular situation emotion play a large role. If emtions are running high and a leader has a strong feeling toward the particular situation it would be easy for a leader to modify his/her leadership approach because of the particular situation
Without a doubt I think leaders should be flexible enough to change slightly for their subordinates and in return need to change according to the particular leader. There is always going to be come tension between leaders and subordinates if they are not able to see they need to come and meet in the middle. If they do not meet in the middle they are going to struggle to get along and succeed. If they do meet in the middle there business and personal relationship should prosper.
I think that leaders and subordinates should both be able to make a change for each other. They need to work together and if that requires one changing for the other then it should happen, a compromise would be the best. But I also think that there may be certain situations where both the leader and the subordinate will not change and that is something they would need to work out.
ReplyDeleteI think that the relationships and quality are both equally important. If both the leader and subordinates have a good relationship then the quality of their work together will be good.
The three terms, contingency, context, and situation, are definitely very similar terms especially when relating them to leadership. However, I think that the contingency relates to the provision of the event where context and situation relate to the circumstances of the event. They are similar as they all have to do with what goes on in an event including leadership skills, gender, and culture.
ReplyDeleteI think traits and behaviors do go hand in hand like Angela said, however there may be some things that differentiate the two. Of course, your traits are what defines you as a person, and how you lead in general. Your behavior on the other hand, may be based on certain situations. This includes outside influences such as people, laws, or even your mood.
As far as in-match and out-of-match leaders, I think there should be a compromise between leaders and subordinates. I don't believe either should change the way they are, but definitely think about the task at hand and the goal. I think the relationship needs to stay in tact in order to be effective, and the leader and subordinates need to stay focused at what they are good at to be effective as well.
I prefer prescriptive models over descriptive. I think a bunch of information just thrown at you is sometimes a lot to take in. Instead, I like how the prescriptive theories are described.
Your traits and behaviors are very similar of course and are the reasons why leaders do things in different situations. But traits are really only useful if you use themm in the right way and in the right situations. This is where behaviors come in because if you use these skills to your advantage then others will look at your behavior and accept it.
ReplyDeletePrescriptive models are more engaging for me because they set up the information and models in ways that are more in tune with leadership traits/behaviors/skills. Descriptive models can be less engaging and boring to try to relate to your own life.
I feel that contingency, context, and situation are also very similar. They all deal with outside sources that effect the actual outcome. Contingency, context, and situation all depend on the circumstances in which they are taking place. I do not believe that these three things can be predicted. This is why I believe leaders need to act in certain ways depending on who he/she is working with or the environment could also have an effect.
ReplyDeleteTraits and behavior are extremely similar, but also have many differences. I believe that a leader needs to use both their traits and behavior differently depending on the situation he/she is in and who the followers are. I feel that people can be born with traits and more people learn behavior. I definitely think both can be born with or learned, but I feel strongly that people can adjust behavior more than they can with their traits. Traits are more natural.
I do not think this question can be universal and think it is extremely difficult to answer. I fist wanted to say that followers should change for their leader because they chose their leader. However, that is not always the situation. For example, students do not always have a choice who they want as a professor. In this situation, I feel that the teacher should use a combination of teaching methods knowing that not everyone learns the same way. However, Angela is one hundred percent correct that the leader and follower needs to work together, but I cannot answer with one hundred percent confidence who I think should change for who; it depends on the situation completely.
I personally prefer prescriptive models over descriptive models because I enjoy having an understanding of how or why things happen.
I feel that contingency, context, and situation are also very similar. They all deal with outside sources that effect the actual outcome. Contingency, context, and situation all depend on the circumstances in which they are taking place. I do not believe that these three things can be predicted. This is why I believe leaders need to act in certain ways depending on who he/she is working with or the environment could also have an effect.
ReplyDeleteTraits and behavior are extremely similar, but also have many differences. I believe that a leader needs to use both their traits and behavior differently depending on the situation he/she is in and who the followers are. I feel that people can be born with traits and more people learn behavior. I definitely think both can be born with or learned, but I feel strongly that people can adjust behavior more than they can with their traits. Traits are more natural.
I do not think this question can be universal and think it is extremely difficult to answer. I fist wanted to say that followers should change for their leader because they chose their leader. However, that is not always the situation. For example, students do not always have a choice who they want as a professor. In this situation, I feel that the teacher should use a combination of teaching methods knowing that not everyone learns the same way. However, Angela is one hundred percent correct that the leader and follower needs to work together, but I cannot answer with one hundred percent confidence who I think should change for who; it depends on the situation completely.
I personally prefer prescriptive models over descriptive models because I enjoy having an understanding of how or why things happen.
One of the key aspects of this chapter is the idea of different leaders traits/behaviors are the main reason leaders do different things in different situations. This goes along with the contingency theory, which talks about how leaders react differently to different situations, based on circumstances in the situation.
ReplyDeleteI also personally believe prescriptive models are much more useful, compared to descriptive leadership models. The main reason is because it is much easier for me personally to understand a prescriptive model (how things should me/should be done).