Fiedler’s Contingency Model Essay Sample

Fred E. Fiedler was one of the first leading research workers to admit that effectual leading is dependent on the features of the leader and the state of affairs. The eventuality theoretical account helps to explicate why a director may be an effectual leader in one state of affairs and uneffective in another. The eventuality theoretical account besides shows which directors are likely to be most effectual in what state of affairss. It is said by Fiedler. that personal features can act upon leader effectivity. Leader manner is used to mention to a manager’s characteristic attack to leading. There are two leader manners. to include: relationship-oriented and task-oriented leaders. Relationship oriented leaders are concerned with developing good relationships with their subsidiaries and being liked by them. Relationship oriented leaders focus on holding high-quality interpersonal relationships with subsidiaries. A undertaking oriented leader’s primary concern is to guarantee that subordinates perform at a high degree. A undertaking oriented leader has a focal point on how productive a subordinate’s occupation public presentation is in relation to their undertaking achievement. Harmonizing to Fiedler. there are three manners of leading in a situational feature.

These manners include: leader/member dealingss. undertaking construction. and place power. Leader/member is when subordinates trust and are loyal to their leaders. Undertaking construction is when the subsidiary has a clear apprehension of the occupation assignment. Position power is the sum of legitimate wages and coercive power a leader has by virtuousness of his or her place in an organisation. ( George & A ; Jones. 2011 ) Fred Fiedler started his work on the Contingency Model in 1951. The first presentation of the theoretical account was in 1963 and it was reviewed and revised in 1974 and 1978. The work of Fiedler has been dedicated to analyzing the individual’s features ( to include: trait. intelligence. and experience ) and the state of affairs. Therefore. the theoretical account incorporates two chief scientific attacks: One. the trait attack to leading. and the other. the person-situation interaction attack used in societal psychological research. In the seventiess. research workers analyzing human behaviour endorsed the impression that a person’s behaviour is the consequence of an interaction between who the individual is ( e. g. . ability. values. or traits ) and the environment ( e. g. . the societal scene. the undertaking ) .

The leading results have included public presentation. satisfaction. turnover. absenteeism. and emphasis. The development of Fiedler’s leading theoretical account reflects this general development in the societal scientific disciplines. ( Ayman. 2002 ) In the last 50 old ages. Fiedler has presented two chief theoretical accounts: the eventuality theoretical account of leading effectivity ( 1978 ) and the Cognitive Resource Theory. In both of these theoretical accounts. the relationship between the individual’s features and the leader’s effectivity is examined in relation to situational demands. Fiedler believed that the leader’s features in relation to effectiveness are contingent on the state of affairs. or the situational elements. Fiedler’s eventuality theoretical accounts are different from other eventuality theoretical accounts such as path-goal theory and the leader decision-making theoretical account. These theoretical accounts of leading investigate leaders by measuring the leaders’ behaviour. whereas Fiedler’s theoretical account examines the leaders by measuring the leaders’ features ( e. g. . motivational orientation. intelligence. and experience ) . ( Ayman. 2002 ) After the initial old ages of research. the theoretical account was presented in its concluding signifier in the 1970s.

The model’s chief premiss is that two factors interact to foretell a leader’s effectivity. One factor included the leader’s features ( largely defined by the leader’s motivational orientation ) and the other factor included the leader’s degree of certainty or control over the state of affairs. The state of affairs includes the work team’s support for the leader. the lucidity of the end and scheme for the leader. and the authorization nowadays in the place of the leader. The theoretical account predicts that in certain state of affairss. where the leaders have high control. the group’s public presentation will be better if the leader is task-motivated instead than relationship-motivated. In state of affairss where the leader has moderate control. the groups’ public presentation will be superior if the leader is relationship focused instead than task-oriented. ( Houghton & A ; Yoho. 2005 ) There is besides question whether “self-leadership is a eventuality theory that best tantrums certain boundary conditions” or whether it is “a universally applicable theory that will work with all employees under all circumstances” Indeed. self-leadership theoreticians have frequently suggested that promoting follower self-leadership may non be universally appropriate. Fiedler’s ( 1967 ) eventuality theoretical account of leading effectivity has been one of the most influential theories in the field of leading research.

The theoretical account proposes that leading effectivity. as reflected by group productiveness is contingent upon the interaction of the leader’s orientation and the favourableness of the group undertaking state of affairs. ( Chemers & A ; Rice. 1973 ) The eventuality theoretical account describes the relationship between leading orientation and leading effectivity. Self-leadership has frequently been presented as a primary mechanism for easing authorization. Self-leadership is defined as a systematic set of schemes through which persons influence themselves toward higher degrees of public presentation and effectivity In recent old ages. self-leadership constructs have gained considerable popularity as evidenced by a figure of practician oriented books. articles on the topic. and coverage in an increasing figure of direction and leading text editions. ( Houghton & A ; Yoho. 2005 )