The Contingency Model and Situational Leadership theory both examine the particular situation a leader and follower are in, but take very different perspectives.
Fred Fiedler’s Contingency Model was very important because it was the first leadership theory to introduce styles and behaviors into the discussion instead of traits and characteristics. The model says that a leader’s effectiveness is based on situational contingency, or the result of interaction of leadership style and situational favorableness.
Fiedler developed the “least preferred co-worker (LPC) scale to measure and identify leadership style. A person must describe the person they like to work with least and rate that person 1 to 8 on a certain criteria. These numbers are averaged. A high score suggests that the leader has a human relations orientation and low score a task orientation. So, relating to hotels, a front desk manager may need to have a high score with great interpersonal skills, whereas the general cashier could have a lower score and be more task-oriented to completely timely reports, cash flow, etc.
Another component of the contingency theory is that there is no ideal leader meaning that a leader is effective if their orientation fits the situation. This considers leader-member relations, task structure and position power. Fiedler also argues that experience can have either a positive or negative effect in a situation depending on the stress level of that situation.
One negative I see about that contingency theory is the assumption that everybody’s least preferred co-worker is about equally unpleasant. I understand that the test is really not about that co-worker, but instead about the person’s motivations type that is taking the test; however, I’m not convince on how accurate this can actually be. I really like the situational perspective, but I question the validity. For example. I would consider myself a relationship oriented leader, but if I took this test I don’t think I would rate my least preferred co-worker in a “favorable light”.I prefer them least for a reason, so the assumption seems a little silly to me.
The Contingency Theory implies that a leader must be in the right position or situation to be effective. The Situational Theory suggests that the leader should use different styles based on the situation. Kenneth Blanchard and Paul Hersey created four situations and approaches: telling, selling, participating and delegating. The following diagram summarizes each.
The task behavior refers to the extent to which the leader spells out duties and responsibilities and the relationship behavior refers to the extent to which the leader engages in two-way communication. It is important to note that the most effective style depends on the readiness of the group. For example, a new front desk agent needs to create a new reservation. The leader would probably need to be selling the process (high task and high relationship) because the new employee needs to know the specific and time sensitive steps to create the reservation, but must also feel like the leader is truly trying to help them. In contrast, a leader may need to be in the delegating behavior for a seasoned front desk agent to show trust in the agent’s skills and abilities.
I find I like the situational leadership theory because it says that a leader can alter both their behavior and their situation, whereas the contingency theory implies only the situation can change. During the past four years of working in the front office at a hotel I’ve found you cannot pick and choose what situation you would like to be in. Therefore, I think a situational leadership theory fits operational hospitality leaders and managers versus the controller or director of finance having a more trait-based theory.
So.. what's your situation?
No comments:
Post a Comment