Leadership is a critical area of an organization. A good leadership propels success in every organization. Researchers have come up with a number of theories that discuss and elaborate on the leadership styles that are required for good progress in the organization. Contingency theories carry the idea that success in leadership relies on a certain situation at hand. There are certain factors which dictate the specific leadership style that will be effective in a given situation (Vroom, & Jago, 2007).
The basic assumptions of Fielder’s Contingency theory, for instance, put forth the notion that proper leadership lies on style adopted by a leader and control that is held over the situation that is under control. According to this theory, success is only achievable when there is a strong leader-member relation (Waters, 2013). The leaders are expected to present duties clearly having goals and procedures properly outlined. The theory also has the notion that leaders should have the ability to make rewards of efforts and handing out of punishments. This particular theory, however, works best in situations where the groups are supervised very closely, which does not apply to team-based.
I have exercised this theory at many occasions in my life. The recent occasion that I felt had more application of this theory was when I was appointed as a leader of youths at my local community. I was tasked to show my colleagues on the proper behaviors that comply with the community expectation. The team of youth which I led showed full cooperation because of the proper outlined procedures that I had put forth. Also,I encouraged rewards to those who showed hardwork to the assigned tasks while setting punishments to the lazy culprits.
References
D. Waters, R. (2013). The role of stewardship in leadership: Applying the contingency theory of leadership to relationship cultivation practices of public relations practitioners. Journal of Communication Management, 17(4), 324-340.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American psychologist, 62(1), 17.
Comments