First Think Of A Prior Or Current Manager Or Leader You Work

First Think Of A Prior Or Current Manager Or Leader You Worked For O

First, think of a prior or current manager or leader you worked for (or interacted with). Then, using Fiedler’s Contingency Model, discuss the leader’s style (High or Low Least Preferred Co-Worker), the situational favorableness (relations, tasks, and position power) the theorized match (using Fiedler’s Model) and the actual match between style and situation (if different). Finally, how does the model help to explain whether or not the leader is effective? Please be specific in your examples.

Paper For Above instruction

Fiedler’s Contingency Model offers a nuanced perspective on leadership effectiveness by emphasizing the interaction between a leader’s style and the favorableness of the situation. To illustrate this, I will examine my previous interaction with a manager who exemplified specific leadership characteristics and situational conditions, analyzing their effectiveness through the lens of Fiedler’s Model.

The first step involves identifying the leader’s style, which Fiedler measures using the Least Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) scale. Leaders with a High LPC tend to see their co-workers as friendly and cooperative, indicative of a relationship-oriented style. Conversely, leaders with a Low LPC are more task-focused, viewing their co-workers more negatively and prioritizing task completion over relationship-building. In my case, my former supervisor demonstrated a High LPC style, emphasizing team harmony, employee development, and positive interpersonal relationships.

Next, assessing the favorableness of the situation involves analyzing three factors: leader-member relations, task structure, and positional power. Leader-member relations refer to the quality of the relationship between the leader and followers, characterized in my scenario by strong mutual trust and respect. Task structure pertains to how clearly defined and structured the tasks are—my supervisor managed well-defined, routine tasks, which provided clarity and predictability. Positional power involves the degree of authority the leader possesses to reward or discipline subordinates; my manager wielded substantial formal authority, making major decisions and influencing resource allocation.

Fiedler's theory suggests that a leader’s effectiveness depends on the alignment between their style and the favorableness of the situation. When the situation is highly favorable (good relations, structured tasks, strong position power), task-oriented leaders excel. When the situation is less favorable (poor relations, unstructured tasks, weak power), relationship-oriented leaders tend to perform better. Based on the situational analysis, I theorize that my supervisor’s high LPC style was well-suited to the favorable conditions of our team environment, resulting in effective leadership.

However, to evaluate whether there's a mismatch, consider that if the situation had been unfavorable—say, poor relations, ambiguous tasks, and limited authority—a task-oriented leader would have been more effective. If my supervisor’s style was less adaptable, a mismatch could have led to decreased team morale and reduced productivity. Nonetheless, in this case, the alignment between his relationship-oriented style and the favorable situation contributed to his leadership effectiveness.

Using Fiedler’s Model to interpret this scenario reveals that leadership effectiveness depends heavily on the fit between style and situational favorableness. When the congruence exists—as it did in my case—leaders tend to perform well because their inherent style complements the environment. Conversely, a mismatch may hinder effectiveness, requiring either a change in leadership style or a change in the situational context for optimal results.

In conclusion, Fiedler’s Contingency Model illuminates how leadership effectiveness is not solely a function of individual traits but rather a dynamic interaction with situational factors. My experience with a leader whose style matched the favorability of the situation underscores this, demonstrating that understanding these interactions can guide leaders to adapt strategies or seek positions better suited for their style, ultimately fostering organizational success.

References

• Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 149-190.
• Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and Practice (8th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
• Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to leadership (pp. 68-106). Dual Publishing Co.
• Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational Leadership: Industry, Military, and Educational Perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and Decision-Making. University of Pittsburgh Press.
• Graeff, C. L. (1997). Evolution of situational leadership theory: A critical review. Leadership Quarterly, 8(2), 153-170.
• Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1982). Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources. Prentice-Hall.
• House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3(4), 81-97.
• Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational Behavior (18th ed.). Pearson.