Leadership Theories and Early Childhood Education, Essay Example

Two Theories: Contingency and Situational

According to Viviane Seyranian, the origin or history of the contingency theory of leadership dates back to the 1950’s when researchers at Ohio State University attempted to define effective leadership behavior by administering in-depth questionnaires designed to measure “a range of possible leader behaviors in various organizational contexts.” What these researchers found is that leadership behaviors or ways of reacting and acting in a leadership position varied widely; however, they did manage to pinpoint two basic types of behavior–1), consideration or when leaders “build good rapport and interpersonal relationships” with their employees and display “support and concern for their subordinates,” and 2), an initiating structure that focuses upon “role assignments, planning, and scheduling” in order to help guarantee that certain tasks and goals are achieved (“Contingency Theories of Leadership”).

As to the origin and history of the situational theory of leadership, this dates back to 1969 when researchers Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard proposed that leadership effectiveness “depends on the leader’s ability to tailor his/her behavior to the demands of the situation,” especially when subordinates are not mature or experienced enough to deal with various circumstances that may arise. According to Hersey and Blanchard, leadership behavior in relation to the situational theory involves 1), telling or directing subordinates; 2), selling or convincing subordinates to act in specific ways; 3), participating or being directly involved in the activities of subordinates, and 4), delegating or assigning specific roles and/or duties to subordinates (Seyranian 3).

Contingency and Situational Descriptions

As noted by R. Bolden, J. Gosling, A. Marturano, and P. Dennison in “A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks,” the contingency theory of leadership is a sort of refinement of the situational theory and “focuses on identifying the situational variables” or conditions that “best predict the most appropriate or effective leadership style to fit the particular circumstances,” such as the authoritarian/autocratic, participative or democratic, and the delegative or laissez faire styles. However, leadership styles vary between managers and directors and what works for one may not work for another (6-8). In contrast, the situational theory proposed by Hersey and Blanchard argues that the “developmental levels of a leader’s subordinates play the greatest role ” in deciding which leadership style is best suited to a given situation. Thus, depending upon the maturity of the subordinates, the leader must determine the amount of direction required or task behavior, and the level of emotional support via “two-way communication, listening, and involving subordinates in the decision-making process” (9).

Contingency and Situational Theories: Comparison/Contrast

It appears that the main difference between the contingency and situational theories of leadership is the style of the leader. For example, in a contingency environment, the leader might suspect that certain variables or conditions may arise that will require a specific leadership style, such as the human relations approach which places a high emphasis on people, “group planning and objectives setting,” a somewhat decentralized structure, a “participative approach for most decisions,” positive reinforcement, two-way communications (Warrick 161). In contrast, in a situational environment, the leader must base his/her leadership style on whichever situation or condition arises which is best accomplished through the participative/democratic style which emphasizes a “flexible structure . . . with clearly defined responsibilities,” team decision-making, opportunities for growth and achievement, communication that is “open, two-way, and genuine,” personal development, and which recognizes and rewards good work and behavior (Warrick 161). As to the similarities between the two theories, the key is subordinates which in a working environment would be employees and in an educational environment students or for our purposes, young children between the ages of five and ten.

Implications of the Two Theories in Early Childhood Education

With regards to contingency theory two assumptions were advanced; first consideration meaning the development of a great industrial climate through communication. Leaders, “build good rapport and interpersonal relationships” with their employees and display “support and concern for their subordinates” (‘Contingency Theories of Leadership’). Second, is initiating structure that focuses upon “role assignments, planning, and scheduling” in order to help guarantee that certain tasks and goals are achieved (‘Contingency Theories of Leadership’).

Both of these assumptions if practiced impact early childhood education in a positive way. Children reproduce what they see. During this crucial years of their development experiencing cordial relationships among elders in their environment could be the beginning of a violence free generation, There is no doubt that twenty-first century youths are violent because they see it at home and even if schools. As such, if leaders could exemplify this among staff it will be beneficial to the generations emerging from their adjustments.

Structure denotes an orderly environment. Someone said that order is the first law of life. Again if students can visualize cordiality as well as orderliness, early childhood education would have created the foundation for social order within the society. These children are the leaders of tomorrow. They could be our presidents, vice presidents, senators apart from parents too.

Situational theory assumes that modelling benefits collaboration among staff and subordinates. It involves primarily, telling or directing subordinates; selling or convincing subordinates to act in specific ways; participating or being directly involved in the activities of subordinates, and delegating or assigning specific roles and/or duties to subordinates (Seyranian, 2012).  The implication here is that leaders would have to project themselves as being the personality he/she wants to develop among staff. Interestingly, these same qualities will be transferred to the children in their environments. In early childhood education children are not only exposed to a curriculum, bur also an environment of people from who they model/emulate.

Describe the implications of using this theory in an Early Childhood Education program: whether be positive or negative

As explained in the precious section both theories influence the teaching/ learning gout comes. Contingency theory in practice teaches the young child how to collaborate. When programs are designed once children realize that their teachers are examples of unity, coordination and structure this influences their learning positively. When the opposite is realized then learning could be inhibited. In the situational theory where leaders in the form of a director as well as supervisors are expected to demonstrate qualities that will enhance learning, students will benefit more from the programs in which they are asked to participate.

For example, if within a social studies lesson plan students are given instructions to construct a home/home from abstract concepts and the teacher could not accurately show them hoe it is done combining their imitative, then the theory cannot be applied positively in that particular situation. Alternatively, if teachers are well prepared and have efficiently practiced the skills pertaining to this lesson, the outcome would definitely be positive.

How might these theories influence your role as a director?

These theories force me as a director to be aware of how I represent myself among staff as well as the young children under our care. For example, contingency theoretical assumptions forge accountability. It means that everyone on the team has to offer his/her full support because together ‘we win, together we lose’ (anonymous). There is no time for hiding under the strengths of another staff member. When duties/assignments are delegated they must be executed by the person to whom they were given and in the manner specified. In applying contingency theory it is my responsibility to see duties being carried through.

In relation to situational theory applications whereby planning as well as modelling is the required leadership dispensation; it may be worthwhile combining the two theories in my leadership practice. During collaborative activities, staff input into planning should be encouraged. Modeling does not occur in isolation because it could appear as though the leader is projecting conceited perfection, which does not exist. Precisely, we collaborate and plan together; as a leader, I model the qualities that would bring successes; in the situational assumption, delegation is done and we work together in achieving goals for students and the organization benefti.

Works Cited

Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A., and Dennison, P. “A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks.” Centre for Leadership Studies. June 2003 Web. 29 April 2014.

Hard, Louise. “Leadership in Early Childhood Education and Care: Facing the Challenges and Embracing New Possibilities.” 2011. Web. 29 April 2014.

Seyranian, Viviane. “Contingency Theories of Leadership.” Encyclopedia of Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. Ed. John M. Levine and Michael A. Hogg. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2009. 152-56. 30 January 2012. Web. 29 April 2014.

Warrick, D.D. “Leadership Styles and Their Consequences.” Journal of Experiential Learning and Simulation 3.4 (1981): 155-172. Print.