Contingency Theory

Contingency theories are a class of behavioral theory that contend that there is no one best way of leading and that leadership styles that are effective in some situations may not be successful in others.
An effect of this is that leaders who are very effective at one place and time may become unsuccessful  when transplanted to another situation or when factors around them change.
This helps to explain how some leaders who seem like they can do no wrong, suddenly appear make very unsuccessful decisions.

Fiedler's Contingency Model Fiedler's model assumes that group performance depends on: Leadership style, described in terms of task motivation and relationship motivation. Situational favorableness, determined by three factors: 1. Leader-member relations - Degree to which a leader is accepted and supported by the group members. 2. Task structure - Extent to which the task is structured and defined, with clear goals and procedures. 3. Position power - The ability of a leader to control subordinates through reward and punishment. High levels of these three factors give the most favorable situation, low levels, the least favorable. Relationship-motivated leaders are most effective in moderately favorable situations. Task-motivated leaders are most effective at either end of the scale. Fiedler suggests that it may be easier for leaders to change their situation to achieve effectiveness, rather than change their leadership style.

Contingency theory is similar to situational theory in that there is an assumption of no simple one right way. The main difference is that situational theory focuses more on behaviors that leaders should adopt, given situational factors (often about follower behavior), whereas contingency theory takes a broader view that includes contingent factors about leader capability and other variables within the situation.
     Hersey-Blanchard Situational Theory
     This theory suggests that leadership style should be matched to the maturity of the subordinates.
     Maturity is assessed in relation to a specific task and has two parts:

• Psychological maturity - Their self-confidence and ability and readiness to accept responsibility.
• Job maturity - Their relevant skills and technical knowledge.

    As the subordinate maturity increases, leadership should be more relationship-motivated than
    task-motivated. For four degrees of subordinate maturity, from highly mature to highly immature,
    leadership can consist of:

• Delegating to subordinates.
• Participating with subordinates.
• Selling ideas to subordinates.
• Telling subordinates what to do

I think I am more of a task-oriented leader than relationship-oriented. However, I use several different styles of leadership skills depending on the situation, and also based on previous experiences. I agree that there are many different ways to lead, and that there are different approaches of leading different people and skill sets.  I think I can be a directive, supportive, and participative leader depending on what goal my team would have to achieve and what kind of relationship I have with my team. I would exhibit more directive-path leader characteristics when approaching solutions to serious problems and be adapt to being a supportive leader when leading less mature subordinates.