Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Human contingency learning (HCL) is the observation that people tend to acquire knowledge based on whichever outcome has the highest probability of occurring from particular stimuli. In other words, individuals gather associations between a certain behaviour and a specific consequence.
Contingency management (CM) is the application of the three-term contingency (or operant conditioning), which uses stimulus control and consequences to change behavior. CM originally derived from the science of applied behavior analysis (ABA), but it is sometimes implemented from a cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) framework as well.
The three-term contingency (also known as the ABC contingency) is a psychological model describing operant conditioning in three terms consisting of a behavior, its consequence, and the environmental context, as applied in contingency management. The three-term contingency was first defined by B. F. Skinner in the early 1950s. [1]
The contingency theory is also beneficial as it widened our understanding of leadership, by persuading individuals to consider the various impacts of situations on leaders. Another strength of the contingency theory is its predictive nature that provides an understanding to the types of leaders that will be most effective in specific situations.
The Vroom–Yetton contingency model is a situational leadership theory of industrial and organizational psychology developed by Victor Vroom, in collaboration with Philip Yetton (1973) and later with Arthur Jago (1988). The situational theory argues the best style of leadership is contingent to the situation.
Fiedler's contingency model is a dynamic model where the personal characteristics and motivation of the leader are said to interact with the current situation that the group faces. Thus, the contingency model marks a shift away from the tendency to attribute leadership effectiveness to personality alone. [5]
Contingency theory of leadership. In the contingency theory of leadership, the success of the leader is a function of various factors in the form of subordinate, task, and/ or group variables. The following theories stress using different styles of leadership appropriate to the needs created by different organizational situations.
Theory X is a "we versus they" approach, meaning it is the management versus the employees. [6] The soft approach is characterized by leniency and less strict rules in hopes for creating high workplace morale and cooperative employees. [7] Implementing a system that is too soft could result in an entitled, low-output workforce. [7]