Having looked at the two theories, let’s now look at how the two theories contrast. Several similarities are evident from both theories. Firstly, there is a common position that the theories do lay a strong emphasis on performance. The essence of having an open ended approach in the contingency model is geared towards helping the manager to customize the needs of the employee to the coaching process so that they become more productive. On the other hand, the GROW approach takes into perspective the need to achieve goals; this is the reason why this theory too lays a strong emphasis on performance.
Secondly, in both models the employee is not approached on what they should be doing but the focus is more on what they can do so that they can achieve the desirable futuristic results. The models do not look at the past in order in promote the future, but they mainly focus in the present and the future (Landsberg, 2003). Thirdly, they provide that the leader should be at a position of clarifying decisions to the employee.
Finally, both theories relatively take time; none is implemented instantly. The GROW model requires some substantial amount of time for full realization of results. On the other hand, the contingency model fails to define time, hence can be time consuming. There are differences that are evident in the two theories. While the discretion of the employee is the one that is important in the contingency model, in the GROW model the leader is the one that provides direction while ensuring that the people lead (employees) exhibit growth from one level to another. Therefore, through the contingency theory, the employee may take quite some substantial time before they adjust to the needs of the manager while in the GROW theory, the discretion of the manager determines the amount of time taken for the completion of the entire coaching process (Landsberg, 2003).
The coaching through the GROW model is based on the need to achieve specified goals while on the other hand, the contingency model is geared towards motivating the employees to achieving personal freedom while being coached to exhibit performance (Lapp & Carr, 2008). The contingency model fits perfectly on occasions where there is much respect between the coach and the employee.
The respect makes the employee to be coached systematically while they act under their own discretion. Since they demonstrate respect to the coach, they will ensure that they meet what the coach requires of them. Another instance where this theory may be applicable is in any situation where the form of leadership of the organization is highly democratic or any other democratic scenarios.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples