CONTINGENCY VS. SITUATIONAL

CONTINGENCY:
|kənˈtinjənsē|a future event or circumstance that is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty


Fiedler basically said, if you cant change the personality or style of leadership, then change the situation. This way, everyone and anyone can be successful leaders if they know how to effectively choose the most appropriate situation to apply to their own leadership style.  My question is: how can you change or avoid situations? There are many times where stress and chaos are going to be right in front of your nose and if someone is not the type of leader who can handle difficulties in a calm way, then how can the situation be changed?
He helped many psychologists stray away from associating leadership with traits and characteristics to styles and behaviors. He argues that a leader’s effectiveness is dependant upon two different factors; the situation they find themselves in and how well they control that situation.
He also created a test; Least Preferred Co-worker test, which reflects whether the person taking the test leans more towards a task leadership style vs. relationship.  Those who score their least preferred co-worker in a negative way emphasize the importance of the task at hand. On the contrary, those who have a high score on the test are more interested in relationships and interpersonal behavior.  Personally, I think that I lean more towards task leadership but at the same time I have good relationships with my co-workers.

SITUATIONAL:

|ˌsi ch oōˈā sh ən|a set of circumstances in which one finds oneself; a state of affairs

Kenneth Blanchard and Paul Hersey explained that a leader who uses situational leadership should not only use the management style that comes naturally to every leader but also the styles that match the situation at that very moment.  They also identified four behavior styles present in situational leadership:

1.  Telling (give instructions): high task – low relationship /  guiding+directing+establishing
2. Selling (explain decisions): high task – high relationship / coaching+explaining+clarifying
3. Participating (share ideas): low task – high relationship /   supporting+encouraging+commiting
4. Delegating (turn over decisions): low task – low relationship. / obersving+monitoring

Blanchard also talks about how you have to take in consideration the follower’s maturity, or his/her capacity to perform in any given situation.  This depends on whether the follower has confidence in themselves and is ready to accept the tasks and on their ability to successfully complete those tasks.

Example: Leadership + The Military.

It is very important for leaders involved in the army to adapt situational leadership when leading their team.  It take many different ways to motivate and inspire one team depending on the situation they find themselves in. drill and combat and non combat situations / coaching / training.

This video shows a little bit how this army officer applies different behavior styles to different situations. He is “telling” and serious when he needs to be (before combat), and he is “participative” and “delegating” when the situation changes into combat mode.

Officers may have to exercise the “selling style” at the time of battle when they know their soldiers are willing and confident but they are unable due to panic or fear.  Leaders in this situation will explain to their followers what should be done during combat in a supportive and persuasive way.