Example: tourism industry

THE CONTINGENCY THEORY OF LEADERSHIP - SAGE …

6 THECONTINGENCYTHEORY OFLEADERSHIP157 Getting strategy right means matching people with jobs a match that oftendepends on where a business is on the commodity goes without saying that you cannot pigeonhole. Good people are too mul-tifaceted. That said, I would still make the case that due to their skills andpersonalities, some people work more effectively in commodities and othersare better in highly differentiated products or right peoplefor [a commodity] business are hard-driving, meticulous and detail are not dreamers, they re hand-to-hand combat theother end of the spectrum, it s generally a different kind of person whothrives, not better or worse, just different.

New York: Harper Business. Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall. THE CASES A Difficult Hiring Decision at Central Bank The case is designed to encourage readers to select among three highly qualified can-didates for an important managerial position.

Tags:

  York, Leadership, New york, Theory, Contingency, The contingency theory of leadership

Information

Domain:

Source:

Link to this page:

Please notify us if you found a problem with this document:

Other abuse

Transcription of THE CONTINGENCY THEORY OF LEADERSHIP - SAGE …

1 6 THECONTINGENCYTHEORY OFLEADERSHIP157 Getting strategy right means matching people with jobs a match that oftendepends on where a business is on the commodity goes without saying that you cannot pigeonhole. Good people are too mul-tifaceted. That said, I would still make the case that due to their skills andpersonalities, some people work more effectively in commodities and othersare better in highly differentiated products or right peoplefor [a commodity] business are hard-driving, meticulous and detail are not dreamers, they re hand-to-hand combat theother end of the spectrum, it s generally a different kind of person whothrives, not better or worse, just different.

2 Jack Welch In Chapter 5, we described the situational approach to LEADERSHIP as an approach thatsuggested to the leader what to do in different situations. This requires a great deal offlexibility on the part of the leader (Yukl, 2006). In the CONTINGENCY THEORY of leader-ship, it is assumed that the leader s style is relatively stable and needs to be matched withthe most appropriate situation for the leader s style (Daft, 2005). Fiedler and Chemers(1974) call CONTINGENCY THEORY a leader-match THEORY . The closer the match between leaderstyle and a particular situation, the more effective the leader will with the theories in Chapters 4 and 5, in CONTINGENCY THEORY LEADERSHIP , styles arebroadly described as falling into two categories: task motivated and relationship motivated(Dubrin, 2007).

3 Fiedler (1967) placed these two styles on opposite ends of a continuumand developed a scale he called the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale. When a 3/26/2007 12:52 PM Page 157scores high on the LPC, it means that the leader is relationship oriented, whereas beinglow on the LPC means that the leader is task oriented (Daft, 2005). Task-oriented leaderswant to achieve goals. Relationship-oriented leaders want to develop close relationshipswith their followers (Yukl,2006).SITUATIONALVARIABLESThe CONTINGENCY model helps leaders evaluate three variables using a dichotomous measure.

4 In essence, leaders ask three questions: Are the leader-member relations good orpoor? Is the task structure high or low? Is the leader s position power strong or weak?Answering these three questions allows leaders to determine what situation they are in andwhether their style is a good match for that situation (see Figure ).Criteria for assessing these three variables are shown in Table The variables needto be assessed in the order they are presented in Figure and Table As these arefairly self-explanatory, we will discuss the intersection of LEADERSHIP styles with the situa-tions defined by these three mentioned, the order of these three variables is important.

5 Leaders should examineleader-member relations, then task structure, and, finally, position power (Yukl, 2006).Good leader-member relations combined with high task structure and strong leader posi-tion power (Position 1 in Figure ) is a very favorable situation for leaders. Poor leader-member relations combined with low task structure and weak leader position power(Position 8 in Figure ) is the most unfavorable situation for THEORY suggests that leaders with a low LPC score (those who are very taskmotivated) will be most effective in these two situations.

6 In addition, leaders with middleLPC scores will be effective in Position 1 as well as being effective when the situation isassessed as being somewhat less favorable (Positions 2 to 3 in Figure ). Furthermore,leaders with low LPC scores are effective in Positions 2 to 3. Finally, in situations that aremoderately favorable to somewhat less favorable (Positions 4 to 7 in Figure ), leaderswith a high LPC score (very relationship oriented) will be most effective (Dubrin, 2007).158 CASES IN LEADERSHIPL eader-MemberRelationsTask StructurePosition powerPreferredLeadershipStyleGoodPoorHig hStructure12345678 LowStructureHighStructureLowStructureStr ongPowerWeakPowerLow LPCsMiddle LPCsHigh LPCsLowLPCS trongPowerWeakPowerStrongPowerWeakPowerS trongPowerWeakPowerFigure ModelSource:Adapted from Fiedler (1967).

7 Used by 3/26/2007 12:52 PM Page 158 HOWDOES THECONTINGENCYTHEORY OFLEADERSHIPWORK?The answer to this question is not entirely clear. Why are leaders with low LPC scores bestin very favorable and most unfavorable situations? And why are leaders with high LPCscores most effective in situations that are moderately favorable? These are two questionsthat are still unanswered. Fiedler (1995) has suggested why a mismatch between situationand style may not work. A mismatch leads to anxiety and stress, more stress leads to cop-ing mechanisms developed earlier in a leader s career.

8 And these less developed copingThe CONTINGENCY THEORY of LEADERSHIP 159 Table Variables in the CONTINGENCY ModelLeader-member relationsGood PoorSubordinatesAtmosphere like leader unfriendly trust leader friction between leader/followers get along with leaderFollowers no confidence in leader no loyalty to leader not attracted to leaderTask structureHighLowTask accomplishmentTask accomplishment requirements clear requirements vague and unclear few paths to achieving task many paths to achieving task end to task clear end to task vague solutions limited many correct solutionsLeader s position powerStrongWeakLeader has authority toLeader has no authority to hire subordinates hire subordinates fire subordinates fire subordinates promote promote give pay raises give pay raisesSource:Adapted from Northouse (2007).

9 Copyright 2007, Sage Publications, 3/26/2007 12:52 PM Page 159mechanisms lead to bad leader decisions and, consequently, negative task outcomes(Northouse, 2007).However, while we may not be able to explain why a mismatch between style and sit-uation does not work and a match does work, we can predict whether a leader will beeffective in certain situations and not in others. Consequently, assess several work-relatedsituations based on the three variables in the CONTINGENCY model, assess your own leader-ship style (are you mostly task oriented, relationship oriented, or somewhere in the mid-dle?)

10 , and choose the best situation for your LEADERSHIP style (Daft, 2005).REFERENCESDaft, R. L. (2005). The LEADERSHIP experience(3rd ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson, , A. (2007). LEADERSHIP : Research findings, practice, and york : Houghton , F. E. (1967). A THEORY of LEADERSHIP york : , F. E. (1995). Reflections by an accidental theorist. The LEADERSHIP Quarterly, 6(4), 453 , F. E., & Chemers, M. M. (1974). LEADERSHIP and effective , IL: Scott, , P. G. (2007). LEADERSHIP : THEORY and practice(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: , J., & Welch, S. (2005).


Related search queries