Various theories have been developed to equip practitioners with the necessary paradigms and appropriate leadership styles (Buble, Juras & Matic 2014). Contingency and situational theories also attempt to provide particular frameworks that could be used in organisations. One of the major similarities between the two theoretical paradigms is their being grounded on the assumption that leadership styles should vary according to different settings (Northouse 2013).
As far as the differences are concerned, the two theories are characterised by different approaches, strengths and limitations. For instance, the situational theory implies four styles of leadership characterised by such features as being supportive and directive (Northouse 2013). These styles are aligned with employees’ performance styles characterised by different levels of competence and commitment. Whereas, contingency theory identifies three major types of leaders: task-motivated, socioindependent and relationship motivated (Northouse 2013).
As to the major strengths of situational leadership theory, it provides specific guidelines for practitioners who can use them in many situations. The approach is rather practical and can be easily applied. The strengths of the contingency approach include its focus on the way situations affect leaders, its predictive power to foresee the effectiveness of leaders in certain situations. The theory is also well-grounded as a significant bulk of research exists on the matter.
On the contrary, the situational theory is regarded as less valid as a limited number of studies can be found, which is one of the major weaknesses of the approach (Keskes 2014). Another limitation is the lack of frameworks that could be used in group contexts (Northouse 2013). However, practitioners can try to regard the group as a single body. Thus, the leader can give guidance and support during regular meetings without addressing particular employees. Instructions can be provided in handouts and used by those who need them while encouragement can be an integral part of each meeting.
The major limitation of contingency theory is the insufficient explanation of the link between settings and leadership styles. Although it can be difficult to evaluate a situation, the leader can focus on such features as the urgency of the issue, duration of the project and its relevance. The less urgent the issue is and the longer period is available, the more relationship-oriented the leader should be. The paradigm’s reliance on the LPC scale is heavily criticised as the tool is seen as rather inefficient.
The difference between the two paradigms can also be illustrated with two real-life examples. An employee was assigned to manage a project concerned with holding a regular event that was seen as rather superfluous by all the employees of the company. The employee decided that the project was not characterised by urgency, and the focus on relationships as appropriate. It is noteworthy that the employee was seen positively by all the employees of the company.
An illustration of the use of situational theory is a manager who believes that every employee should be treated differently. The manager always assesses employees’ competence and commitment when assigning tasks. However, he had difficulties with a group project as he failed to choose the right approach to the entire group. All employees were very different, and it was impossible to choose a single style applicable to that project. Thus, the manager had to communicate with every team member separately to ensure a high level of motivation.
Reference List
Buble, M, Juras, A & Matic, I 2014, ‘The relationship between managers’ leadership styles and motivation’, Journal of Contemporary Management Research, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 161-193.
Keskes, I 2014, ‘Relationship between leadership styles and dimensions of employee organizational commitment: a critical review and discussion of future dimensions’, Intangible Capital, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 26-51.
Northouse, PG 2013, Leadership: theory and practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks.