Fiedler’s Contingency Theory Essay

The contingency Theory shows the relationship between the attractions druthers or style and group performance under differing situational conditions. The practical action is based on determining the orientation of a loss drawing card ( relationship or labour ), the elements of the situation ( leader-member relations, task structure and leader perplex power), and the leader orientation that was found to be most useful as the situation changed from low to centrist to extravagantly reign over. Fred Edward Fiedler in his landmark 1964 article, A contingency of attractership Effectiveness. studied and emphasized the importance of both the leaders personality and the situation in which that leader operates. Fiedler found that task orient leaders were more than than hard-hitting in low and moderate control situations and relationship oriented managers were more effective in moderate control situations. Fiedler and his associates studied leaders in a variety of contexts bu t mostly in phalanx context and their model is based on their research findings. They break throughlined two styles of leadership namely task-motivated and relationship-motivated. childbed refers to task accomplishment, and relationship-motivation refers to interpersonal relationships. He measured leadership style leadership style with the Least prefer Co-Worker plateful (LPC scale ). According to Northouse ( 2007 ), the leaders scoring high on this scale are relationship motivated and those scoring low are task motivated. Northhouse further indicated that, central to contingency theory is the concept of the situation, which is characterized by three factors.One, leader-member relations which deals with the general atmosphere of the group and the feelings such as trust, inscription and confidence that the group has for its leader. Two, task structure, which is related to task clarity and the means to task accomplishment. Three, the position power, which relates to the descend of reward-punishment authority the leader has over members of the group. These three factors determine the favorableness of various situations in the organization. Definitions of factors in disaster Theory Situational elements One, is the leader-member relations.The regard with which the leader and the group members hold one another determines in part, the ability of the leader to influence the group and the conditions under which he or she can do so. It therefore follows that a leader who is accepted by the group members is in a more favorable situation than one who is not. Two, is the task structure which is determined by the following questions in mind can a decision be demonstrated as correct? , are the the requirements of the task of the task understood by everyone? , is there more than one correct solution?.If the groups task is not structured, and if the leader is no more knowledgeable than the group about how to accomplish the task, the situation definitely becomes unfavor able. The third factor is the leader position power. This is determined by the rewards and punishments which the leader officially has at his or her disposal for either rewarding or punishing the group members based on how they perform. The more power the leader has, the more favorable the situation. Leader Orientation Fiedler used the Least Preferred Co-worker scale commonly known as LPC scale to measure leadership style.LPC helps management identify the human relations orientation and task orientation of possible leaders. He analyses leader orientation as follows. One of the factors is relationship orientation in which he give tongue to that high LPC leaders are more concerned with personal relations, more sensitive to the feelings of others, and better of purport off conflict. Such leaders use their good relations with others to get a job done. This withal enables them to deal with complex issues when making decisions. These leaders tend to have an LPC remove of 73 and above. In high control situations, these leaders tend to become bored and are no longer challenged.They tend to stress approval from their superiors ignoring their subordinates or they may decide to re take shape he task. They oft become inconsiderate toward their subordinates as a result, become more punishing and more concerned with performance of the task. In moderate control situations, they focus on group relations. They reduce the anxiety and tension of group members and thus reduce conflict. They grip creative decision making groups head. They see this situation as challenging and interesting and perform it well in it. Lastly, in low control situations, they always try to obtain group support often at the expense of the task.In fact under extremely stressful situations, they may also detach from leadership role, failing to direct the groups work. The second factor is task oriented. According to Fiedler, the LPC score for leaders here is 64 and below. Low LPC leaders are more c oncerned with the task, and less subject on group support. They tend to be eager and impatient to get on with work. They quickly organize the job and have a no-nonsense attitude about getting the work done. In moderate control situations, they are anxious and less effective. They become absorbed in the task and pay elfin attention to personal relations in the group.They tend to be insensitive to the feelings of their group members, and the group resents the want of concern. However, in high control situations, these leaders are relaxed and develop pleasant relations with subordinates and they are lucky to get along with. As work gets done, they do not interfere with the group or require interference from their superiors. And lastly in low control situations, the leaders devote themselves to their challenging task. They organize and need the group to task completion. They also tend to control the group tightly and maintain strict discipline.Fiedler and associates cogitate that if a leaders LPC scores fall between 65 and 72, then the leader must(prenominal) carefully analyze their leadership style as they learn more about the relationship oriented and task oriented styles. However, it is important to note that there is no single leadership style that is effective in all situations. Rather, certain leadership styles are better suited for some situations than for others. Fiedler further pointed out that the effectiveness of the leader is contingent upon the orientation of the leader and the favorableness of the situation.