In This Assignment, You Will Analyze Fiedler's Contingency T ✓ Solved

In this assignment, you will analyze Fiedler's Contingency T

In this assignment, you will analyze Fiedler's Contingency Theory and learn to identify the most effective leadership style to use in different situations. John, a health management student completing an internship at Memorial Hospital, has been appointed chair of a multidisciplinary clinical taskforce by the hospital's CEO. The taskforce will design a new operational system to reduce the waiting time of patients entering the hospital's emergency room (ER). The CEO told John that when a patient entered the hospital's ER, it could take up to eight hours from triage to discharge or admission and his goal was to reduce this to two hours. John observed bottlenecks caused by duplicate nursing forms, poor interdepartmental communication, slow turnover of exam rooms, and unnecessary paperwork. The CEO assigned Dr. Smith, the ER medical director, and Mary, the ER nurse manager, to the taskforce. At the first meeting Dr. Smith and Mary arrived late, disagreed with John's operational focus, and left urgently for the ER, instructing John to make staffing and building recommendations. John wondered, 'As chair of this taskforce, what could I have done to produce the desired outcome?' Using this scenario, answer the following: What is Fiedler's Contingency Theory? How did it develop? What are its applications? What are its pros and cons? Does everyone have just one leadership style or can it vary? Why? What factors exert pressure to influence a shift in leadership style? Are the factors exerting pressure to influence a shift in leadership style appropriate with respect to merit and measure? Why or why not? What factors influence a leader to adopt a specific style (personal traits, characteristics, environment, and so on)? What role do communications, dynamic listening, and conflict resolution play for a leader? Using Fiedler's Contingency Theory, how would you help John determine what leadership style he should use? Why? What would be the most effective leadership style in the above case scenario using Fiedler's Contingency Theory? Why?

Paper For Above Instructions

Executive summary

This paper explains Fiedler's Contingency Theory, its origins, applications, strengths and limitations, and applies it to John’s ER taskforce scenario. It recommends practical leadership actions rooted in theory and communication best practice to improve team effectiveness and reduce ER turnaround times.

What is Fiedler's Contingency Theory and how did it develop?

Fiedler's Contingency Theory (developed in the 1960s by Fred Fiedler) argues that leader effectiveness depends on both leader style and situational favorableness (leader-member relations, task structure, and position power) rather than on one universally best leadership style (Fiedler, 1967). Leaders are assessed by the Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) scale that classifies them as task-oriented (low LPC) or relationship-oriented (high LPC). The theory evolved from empirical studies showing that performance outcomes depend on the interaction between leader traits and situational variables (Fiedler, 1967; Northouse, 2021).

Applications of the theory

Fiedler's model is used for leader-job matching, leadership selection, and designing interventions to change situational favorableness (e.g., increasing leader position power or clarifying tasks). In healthcare operations, it can guide whether to alter team composition or strengthen formal authority to support a novice chair like John in leading process redesign (Yukl, 2013; Asplin et al., 2003).

Pros and cons

Pros: The theory provides a structured diagnostic for matching leaders to contexts and explains inconsistent leadership outcomes across settings (Fiedler, 1967; Northouse, 2021). It emphasizes situational contingencies rather than “one-size-fits-all” leadership.

Cons: The model assumes leadership style is stable (limited flexibility), the LPC measure has psychometric critiques, and it gives limited guidance on how to train leaders to change style quickly (Chemers, 1997; Yukl, 2013).

Does everyone have a single leadership style? What pressures influence shifts?

Fiedler suggested style is relatively stable; however, other models (situational leadership, transformational leadership) propose leaders can adapt behaviors. In practice, leaders display a dominant orientation but can vary behaviors under pressure. Pressures to shift style include organizational demands, crisis urgency, role expectations, stakeholder power, and training/feedback. These pressures can be appropriate when they align with merit and measurable outcomes (performance metrics, patient safety), but can be inappropriate if they prioritize politics or short-term optics over evidence-based process change (Kotter, 1995; Goleman, 2000).

Factors influencing leader style choice

Key influences: personality and values, prior experience and training, organizational culture, structural constraints (authority, resources), and situational task characteristics. In healthcare, clinical status, regulatory requirements, and patient-safety priorities also shape style (Bass & Bass, 2008; Womack & Jones, 2003).

Role of communication, listening, and conflict resolution

Communication is central: clear directives, transparent data-sharing, and active listening build trust and reduce resistance (Goleman, 2000). Dynamic listening (reflective, inquiry-based) uncovers frontline constraints; conflict resolution converts professional disagreements into design improvements. For a leader like John, strong communication mitigates poor leader-member relations and helps mobilize experts (Yukl, 2013).

Applying Fiedler's model to John's ER taskforce

Situational diagnosis (per Fiedler): leader-member relations are weak (Dr. Smith and Mary arrived late and resisted John's recommendations), task structure is mixed (clear objective from CEO but disagreement on method), and John’s position power is low (intern with limited formal authority). Overall, the situation is unfavourable to moderately unfavourable. Fiedler predicts that in highly unfavorable contexts a task-oriented (low-LPC) leader often performs better because clear goals, structure, and directive action reduce ambiguity (Fiedler, 1967; Northouse, 2021).

Therefore, help John by either: (a) changing the situation to better fit a relationship-oriented style (improve leader-member relations, increase position power via CEO backing, and structure tasks), or (b) adopting a more task-oriented approach immediately to gain early wins (set timelines, define process steps, assign measurable deliverables) (Yukl, 2013).

Recommended leadership style and practical steps

Short-term: adopt a task-oriented (directive, data-driven) style to rapidly diagnose bottlenecks and implement pilot process changes. Specific actions: secure explicit CEO mandate and resources (increase position power), produce a concise agenda and data packet before meetings, use process mapping and time-motion data to show causes of delay (Asplin et al., 2003; Hoot & Aronsky, 2008), assign focused subteams with deadlines, and pilot small rapid changes (Lean methods) to create measurable improvements (Womack & Jones, 2003).

Medium-term: as quick wins accumulate, shift to more relationship-oriented behaviors to sustain change—acknowledge clinical expertise, solicit input, and institutionalize cross-department communication protocols. Use conflict-resolution techniques to mediate physician–nurse disagreements and rely on active listening to rebuild leader-member relations (Goleman, 2000; Kotter, 1995).

Rationale: Fiedler’s model supports task focus in unfavorable conditions; once situational favorableness improves through structural changes and trust-building, relationship-focused leadership will better sustain collaboration and continuous improvement (Fiedler, 1967; Northouse, 2021).

Conclusion

Fiedler’s Contingency Theory gives John a practical decision rule: diagnose the situation, then either change the situation or adopt the appropriate leader role. Given the low position power and strained relations, John should begin with a task-oriented, structured approach backed by CEO authority, produce rapid measurable improvements, and then transition toward relationship-building to sustain long-term system change.

References

• Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and Practice (8th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
• Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
• Asplin, B. R., Magid, D. J., Rhodes, K. V., Solberg, L. I., Lurie, N., & Camargo, C. A. (2003). A conceptual model of emergency department crowding. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 42(2), 173–180.
• Hoot, N. R., & Aronsky, D. (2008). Systematic review of emergency department crowding: causes, effects, and solutions. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 52(2), 126–136.e1.
• Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59–67.
• Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78–90.
• Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (2003). Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
• Chemers, M. M. (1997). An Integrative Theory of Leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.