When we initially started the project, each member of the team wanted to perform well and gain knowledge in the process. The way of expression changed based on innate apprehensions and preconceived notions about one another (Greenleaf, 2002). We had agreed to work on the details and point down each of our ideas in the process. I was in charge of trying to give inputs of the different points of the opinioned team members. As it was pointed by my team members, I seem to have strong opinions. I felt I knew exactly what the people wanted in each of these situations. I was in charge of organizing ideas and addressing the sessions. I was in charge of giving guidelines as to how to operate.
Strategic Contingency Theory for Solutions
I assumed that the best method of guiding the people was by the use of the contingency theory (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Wheatley, 2011). The issue with this theory is that it is subjective and all the characters are relative to each other in the context. The strategic contingency theory is a theory that is based on my personal ideology of leading people (Schein, 2006). It states that to lead people, it is imperative for the people to create a style of leadership to control the situation. In this context, I felt that my team members were all people who were smart and had the exposure to develop the appropriate solutions. This gave me empathy as to how they thought in a particular situation. However, I did not realize that I was the one being strongly opinioned in the process.
My team members approach to leadership were different from my approach. They focused on the aspects of building relationships. They were more concerned about how to bring the stakeholders together. I wanted a specific plan to ensure that each member had the appropriate guidelines for the creation of a sustainable plan. My team members wanted a plan that was about asking the people to innovate. I wanted to profess that not all the people in a company can be tech savvy.