The kind of leadership that a leader adopts influences the levels of motivation in the people that he or she leads. Similarly, the kind of motivation that one feels will determine the kind of leadership that they would most likely take. In other words, leadership and motivation are related, and one influences the outcome of the other (Buble, Juras, & Matić, 2014). For instance, when one’s motivation is to stay in the leadership position for the longest time possible without facing any rivalry, the individual is likely to exercise authoritarian leadership. On the other hand, when one adopts a transformational kind of leadership, the people that a person is leading are more likely to be motivated to work harder and improve their efficiency, so that they could meet the goals and targets that they set (Benson, 2008). The relationship between the leader and the followers is also a factor that contributes to the relationship between the leadership style and the motivation among the followers as well as the leader.
Fundamentally, with regards to leadership and motivation, two theories are essential in explaining the different concepts that are involved. The contingency and the situational models discuss the various aspects of leadership (Northouse, 2012). It is important to note that there are numerous ways in which one can approach so that they can achieve success in leadership. However, not all approaches turn out to be successful. According to the situational theory, a leader needs to adapt to various situations. For instance, when a company goes through a crisis, and any decision taken is imperative, the leader does not have time to consult. In such a situation, one can choose to be authoritative for the period of the crisis. The decisions that the leader makes during this time are entirely his or her ideas.
The strength of the situational theory is that it is flexible. One can choose any style of leadership to suit any situation, making it easy to lead smoothly (Northouse, 2012). However, there is little information concerning the model. The theory also fails to cater for the characteristics of individual employees. A particular leadership style may be unsuitable for certain groups of people.
In essence, the contingency theory analyzes the relationship between the style of leadership that one adopts and the situation at hand (Schmid, 2008). According to this model, three factors determine the leadership style that one adopts. For instance, the relationship of a leader and the employees determines the kind of leadership that will exist. For example, when workers do not have trust in the leader, the leadership style will not be a friendly one. Another factor that influences governance is the nature of the job at hand. A task may demand that the leader works together with the employees to do the work. Therefore, a leader has to adopt a style that accommodates the employees and their opinions. The third factor is the position power that the leader wields. The power that one wields in a leadership position can affect the style that they are likely to use. A contingency approach to leadership offers one a wide range of leadership styles to adopt, based on the three factors that have been discussed. However, the approach may not be consistent, because one is likely to succeed in a particular situation but fail in another.
Contingency and situational approaches to leadership are both equally important. However, one has to analyze a particular environment and determine the best approach to deal with the situation. Apart from that, one’s behavioral and personal characteristics influence the leadership style that they are likely to adopt (Northouse, 2012). One could have a directive or supportive behavior. Both have advantages and disadvantages based on the motivating factors. For instance, a private business firm’s main aim is usually to gain revenue and beat the competition. The kind of leadership that is needed in this situation should enable the employees to work efficiently to realize the increased revenues.
References
Benson, J. D. (2008). Leadership & motivation. Research starters business: Leadership & Motivation, 1-5.
Buble, M., Juras, A., & Matić, I. (2014). The relationship between managers’ leadership styles and motivation. Management: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 19(1), 161-193.
Northouse, P. G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage.
Schmid, H. (2008). Leadership styles and leadership change in human and community service organizations. Handbook of Community Movements and Local Organizations (pp. 395-409). Springer US.
