Comparing Two Leadership Theories Essay

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.

According to the leader-member exchange theory the relationship between leader and the member develops over a period of time.

Leadership theories in and of themselves carry negative and positives characteristics. Within the various theories lie strengths and weaknesses that when applied to complex problems can highlight each one respectively. As I examine a few theories, I will look at the strengths and weaknesses of each and determine when and with which situation would these theories best be utilized. Collective leadership or distributive leadership, and leader-member exchange are both theories that incorporate specific team or group mentalities.

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.

The Renaissance was a rebirth of cultural awareness and learning that took place during 1400 - 1500. Art became a branch of learning during the Renaissance. It was a period of time when art was very important. Artists had finally recaptured the amazing detail and realism that the Greeks and Romans perfected. Artists broke boundaries with new exciting mediums and bright colors. Filippo Brunelleschi permitted artists to decide the proportional size of a figure by inventing the vanishing point perspective. This made it possible to put everything into perfect proportion. Many elderly people are found in the paintings. Such as Man in a Red Turban on page 270 fig. 15.34 or online at http://www.abcgallery.com/E/eyck/eyck3.html.

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory explains the two-fold connection and the communication between a leader and subordinate. In comparison to the other leadership theories, the LMX theory is different because it focuses on the distinct relationships between the leader and each follower and the dual alliance that they share.It determines the extent to which leaders and followers have common respect for each other’s skills, personally feel a greater sense of compatible trust, and have a good sense of responsibility to each other. My questionnaire scores were in the high range for completing the questions both as a leader and a follower. My scores regarding my relationship with myleader were very high, a 35. In describing my relationship with followers, my score was in the high range, a 29. Reflecting about my scores, I wasn’t surprised about the results. I feel that in the role of leadership, I would work tirelessly to provide a positive work environment as well as positive relationships with my followers.But, there remains an area where I could improve in communicating better with followers. Being an all-inclusive leader would ensure that no followers would feel isolated. This includes to always provide a level playing field and to establish an environment where followers are not observing but instead participating. This would lead to an equitable atmosphere and would improve the major points of the leader-member theory: respect, relationships, and work ethic.

Leadership can be defined as the ability to lead a group of people successfully in an organization. Hall, et al (2008) have mentioned that an effective leader has to be visionary, motivating and responsible in order to successfully run a business organization. In business the two key leadership styles, which are widely used in today’s corporate world are autocratic leadership and democratic leadership (Johnson, n.d.). Autocratic leadership may be explained as “a leadership style where the manager sets objectives, allocates tasks and insists on obedience” (Hall, et al 2008 p.g 401). Conversely, democratic leadership encourages “participation in decision making” (Hall, et al 2008 p.g 402). Whilst many people would consider autocratic

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

Leadership theories are attempts to answer some of the question people have about leadership. These theories range from simple “armchair philosophies” about the personal characteristics and effect relationship between leaders and followers and situations.

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 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.

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

Fiedler enunciated major frameworks of the contingency theory in the mid-1960s (Miner, 2005). As mentioned before, Fiedlers idea is very straightforward, it outlines to match the leaders style with the circumstances best favourable for their success. Fielder states that the

Gusmond, I agree with you that Fiedler’s Contingency Model has lost its relevancy I today’s work environment. (Robbins, Judge, and Campbell, 2009). Fiedler believing that our natural leadership style is fixed and the most effective way to handle situations is to change the leader (Fiedler, 1967) would create a constant revolving-door at most businesses today, in my opinion. In lesson 6 – Leadership, we read that “Fiedler proposed a model whereby leaders are classified in terms of whether they were more task-oriented or relationship-oriented.” With the study of organizational behavior expanding, I would tend to think as a society we’re much more relationship-oriented today than ever before. The value placed highly by generational employees is probably more different than it’s ever been before as well.