Analysis Of The Fiedler Contingency Theory On Leadership

There have been numerous theories surrounding leadership, which attempt to explain which form is most effective in the workplace. A universalistic approach was once used to rationalize leadership and it was believed that successful leaders possessed certain common abilities and traits. However, today due to external factors such as globalization and advanced technologies, there has been an evolution towards a new paradigm of leadership. Subordinates want to feel empowered and engaged at the workplace and often the behaviors and relationships between leaders and their subordinates become important to understand in order to fully understand effective leadership. Contingency theories have been developed in which people began to look at the behavior of leaders in specific situations. Two such contingency theories are: Path-Goal and Hershey and Blanchard’s Situational Theory.

Herschey and Blanchard, in their Situational Leadership theory, recommend that a leader adapts their leadership style on the basis of the maturity of the group or individual in dealing with specific situations. If an individual is new to the organisation and have a low level of expertise but a high level of motivation then a directing leadership style is likely to be most suitable, whereas an employee that has a higher level of skills but variable commitment may respond to a supportive style in order to build confidence.

The next big era of leadership theories was the Rational Management era. When the previous era failed to determine exact traits that could consistently be identified in great leaders, a shift occurred to begin looking at how these leaders behaved, and what made them into great leaders, rather than who they were in a specific sense. This was a major shift from thinking that people were born leaders, to now considering that perhaps leaders could be made, or trained to become leaders. The first of these theories, beginning in the early 1950’s, were the behavior theories. The focus of these theories was to study what these leaders do, and

When you consider Fiedler’s Contingency Theory, there are two types of leaders who are effective in different types of situations. There are the task-oriented leaders who are effective in scenarios which need structure and often clarification. These leaders are often found to be most effective in crisis type

Personality, experience, general operating style and learning of leadership are all contributors in determining what style of leadership an individual will adopt. To be a leader and decide upon a style, one must know their self and have an understanding of their own abilities, as well as having a knowledge base on their prospective followers (Sellgren, Ekvall, & Tomson, 2006). I will be discussing two leadership styles, situational and authoritarian. Situational leadership is a style of leadership developed by Dr. Paul Hersey, which is categorised under the core theory of contingency. This theory was first introduced as “Life Cycle Theory of Leadership”, which was renamed to “Situational Leadership” in the mid 1970s. This style teaches that there is no one particular style that is efficient for every situation and effective leaders adapt their style to accommodate the range of individuals within a group. An effective leader must have the ability to diagnose, adapt and communicate based on the readiness of followers and other situational variables. Dr. Paul Hersey describes the “an individual’s readiness level as their willingness and ability to complete a particular task. He proposes that a situational leader is able to change their leadership style depending on the situation and a follower’s readiness level. This is a significant element in ensuring the task gets completed successfully (Mujtaba & Sungkhawan, 2011). According to this style, there are four readiness levels. Style one is when the followers are unable and unwilling to perform the task. Upon identifying this, the leader is able to explain to followers what, where, how and when to do this particular task. This particular style is also known as “telling” and is optimal when attempting to influence followers with low readiness levels. Style two, also called “selling” is described as when

The contingency approach, founded in the 1970’s differs from the behavioral approach. “Examining various situational variables is central to understanding leadership in organizations, according to the contingency theorist” (Stojkovic, Klofas & Kalinich, 2012). Fiedler’s Contingency Model is one of those contingency theories.

The contingency model developed by Fiedler is based on the foundation that a meticulous leadership style is most effective in opposed situations. The key element would be to outline which leadership style needs to be used in what situations.

The life-cycle theory is based on the maturity levels of the employees in the organization. Employees with less tenure or experience may require a leadership style that focuses more on the tasks or assignments that they need to accomplish. A leader may need to provide more direction to the employees in order to ensure the tasks are successfully completed. Since more experienced or seasoned employees need less directive action from the supervisor in order to accomplish their assignments, the leader should provide more focus towards the best way to support the employees. Hersey and Blanchard appear to suggest that more seasoned employees should become involved in the decision making process with less direct supervision. Employees are expected to not only identity the problem, but also to provide a solution to the problem. “When they gain experience, employees become more able to contribute and participate in those decisions affecting them and the work….experienced oldtimers and professionals need a free rein to function most effectively.” (Plunkett, Allen & Attner, 2013, p466)

Fiedler’ model is considered the first highly visible theory to present the contingency approach. It stated that effective groups depend on a proper match between a leader’s style of interacting with subordinates and the degree to which the situation gives control and influence to the leader (Fiedler, 1967). Fiedler argued that the leadership style could be indentified by

My leadership philosophy is consists of multiple leadership theories. Leadership theories can be leader-centered or follower-centered. Leadership theories focus on the leader’s personality and skill abilities. The psychodynamic approach is most similar to my leadership style because of its focus on personality. My leadership style is directive and task oriented. There are certain weaknesses in my leadership style which I know I can improve on. By incorporating the knowledge I have gained through this course I plan on applying the contingency theory to refine my leadership skills. The path-goal theory’s main emphases is on the relationship between the leader and follower which can help influence your subordinates. As a follower, I feel the relationship between the follower and the leader is tremendously important in the work environment in order to be able to complete tasks efficiently which is described in the leader-member exchange theory. In this essay I will describe my leadership philosophy which is comprised of the contingency theory, the path-goal theory, the leader-member exchange theory, and the psychodynamic approach theory and present a plan of action to improve my leadership and motivation skills.

The trait leadership theory focuses on the individual leader’s personal characteristics as the basis of its investigations. It is one of the earliest leadership theories upon whose tenets many researches on leadership have been done. Although it is not very coherent, its heuristic nature has contributed to its significance in leadership research. Zaccaro and Klimoski (2002) define traits of reference to leadership as the stable personality characteristics, which result in a consistent leadership performance pattern, given different scenarios and groups. They include individual personalities, temperament, rationale, prowess, as well as cognitive abilities. Initially, the theory explored both physical and psychological characteristics that tell apart leaders from non-leaders.

Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Theory (SLT) asserts that a leader’s effectiveness is dependent upon the readiness, or ability and willingness, of the leader’s followers to complete a task. This leadership style is an amalgamation of task-oriented and relationship-oriented characteristics that are employed depending upon the situation and the followers involved. According to the SLT, as followers increase in readiness the leader’s style is to adapt accordingly (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009).

In today’s world, leaders are not defined by age, race or gender. They can be a high school basketball coach, the shift supervisor at the local coffee shop, or even the President of the United States of America. In as many ways that leaders can vary by appearance and responsibility, there is also a variance in the ways that they lead. This case study aims to compare three of the more popular theories of leadership. These leadership theories are situational leadership, trait theory and transformational leadership.

The Contingency Theory applied to factors unique to each situation to determine whether specific leader characteristics and behaviors will be effective. Researched findings credit Fiedler 's contingency theory as the first to specify how situational factors interact with leader traits and behavior to influence leadership effectiveness. This theory suggests high interest in the situation determines the effectiveness of task- and person-oriented leader behavior.

The most popular and extensively researched situational theory of leadership was first proposed by Fred Piedler during the 1960s. Fiedler's model claims that group performance depends on the interaction of the leader style and the favorableness of the situation. Fiedlers major contributions consist of(l) iden-tifying the leadership orientation of the leader and developing a way to measure it, and (2) identifying three situational factors influencing leadership and developing a method of measuring them