Blog #4: The matchmaking game of Leadership

As we dive into another week of leadership styles and theories, this week we are going take a closer look into a theory that almost mixes the theories from past blog posts all together... and it is contingency theory! I think that this theory is one that has the most potential of being applied in relevant everyday situations.

In a nutshell, contingency theory is leading with the perspective that everybody is going to have a different maturity level and that you must adapt to people on an individual level to be a successful leader. This idea of contingency theory was born back in 1969 by Hersey and Blanchard and is relatable because good leaders must be adaptable. Not only to the new situations that come up and arise, but because everybody’s rhythm is different and no one person’s thinking process is the same as the next.

Using Blanchard’s Situational Leadership model, followers fall into different development levels based on competence and commitment. For example, a D1 follower is someone with low competence but high commitment: they are eager and motivated, but inexperienced. A D2 follower may have gained some competence but can struggle with confidence or consistency as the reality of the role sets in. Because of this, leadership cannot be one-size-fits-all.

I think the basis of a relatable leader is one that can shift their perspective and evaluate based on what is needed in the situation. For example, you may be looking to fill a role in a restaurant for food expeditor. Many times, this position is promoted from within, but in the off chance that it’s not, this would take some adapting for an unseasoned service industry worker.

If I hired someone completely new to restaurants, they would likely fall into the D1 category: this would be someone with high enthusiasm and low experience. In that case, the leader would need to use a directing style: clear expectations, step-by-step instruction, and close supervision. However, if someone has worked in restaurants before but is adjusting to a new system, they might fall into the D2 category. They know enough to understand the pressure of the role but may doubt themselves. That situation calls for more of a coaching style. This would be to still provide direction, but also offer encouragement and explanation behind decisions.

From my own experience, I have personally benefited when a leader matched my development level correctly. When I first stepped into a leadership-oriented serving role at the winery I work at, I would say I was in that D2 phase. I had experience, but I didn’t yet fully understand the culture or expectations of that particular operation. My manager at the time helped me learn new tasks all while making me feel supoorted where needed to help me teach others after me.

On the flip side, I have seen what happens when there is a mismatch. I have watched managers delegate immediately to someone who was clearly at a D1 level. Instead of directing and guiding, they assumed readiness. That mismatch created stress and inefficiency, not because the employee lacked potential, but because the leadership style didn’t align with the development level. I have personally also been in this situation... Like they say, the worst thing you can do is ASSUME that someone knows something... But in all reality, that just makes an ASS out of U and ME. To be a good leader, you have to be willing to learn about a persons strengths and weaknesses to be successful.

For me, I am a hands-on learner. When a leader says something but gives no example or direction, I can feel lost. In moments where I was still developing I needed clarity and structure. As I’ve grown in experience and moved toward higher development levels, I have appreciated more autonomy. That shift alone proves the foundation of contingency theory... That leadership must evolve as the follower evolves.

At the end of the day, I think contingency theory stands out because it reminds us that leadership is less about who you are and more about how aware you are. A dynamic leader is able to coach and adapt to their subordinates’ level and style of thinking. When the match is right, growth happens. When the match is wrong, even talented people can struggle.

BLOG RECOGNITIONS/ PEER AWARDS:

Malia Kassler: Coherence Award! Malia has done a great job at keeping a consistent theme and putting her own personal twist to each of her blogs. I like her personal anecdotes throughout her work and it makes the theories feel more alive!

Vincent Dinh: Vulnerability! Vincent has done a good job with making his work feel real and human. He tells stories and makes his learning moments teachable for the reader, and easy to digest!

Allegra Pompeo: Simple, yet impactful and insightful! Allegra approaches leadership with an open mind and it's refreshing to hear her perspective! She also keeps a clean and simple blog which makes the weekly posts fun to read.

Alexa Martinez: Most crafty! The name of the blog is great and it feels like the real deal. Great pictures, a great flow and a great story to be told from Alexas perspective!