FIEDLER’S CONTINGENCY MODEL DISCUSSION 4
Fiedler’sContingency Model Discussion
Fiedler’sContingency Model Discussion
Theapplication of the Fiedler’sContingency Model providedthe group with a model of exploring our personal traits andleadership styles. However, the situational nature of the leadershipenvironment makes the description of the type of leadership a dynamicphenomenon to study. In the assessment done by the group, the membershad different scores in various categories that demonstrated ourdiversity in terms of orientation of leadership styles under theFiedler’sContingency Model.According to Nahavandi (2014), a leader with a high LPC means that heand the group work well in situations that are moderately controlled.The results of the discussion and the evaluation showed that I didmatch with the group as predicted by the Fiedler’sContingency Model.
Afterthe assessment, I realized that my group performs best with moderatesituational control. This is because I established that I have a highLPC, which indicates a match with the situation described by theFiedler’sContingency Model. This means that I am a leader with a high regardfor human relations in the group. This confirms my traits as a personwho is relationship oriented other than task oriented. In many of theresponses, I found myself and the rest of the group in a morepleasant and more efficient manner. This explains the tendency topositively rate my leastpreferred coworkers as argued by the Fiedler’sContingency Model (Nahavandi,2014).The reason for being “in match” with the group is also because ofmy preference of a leadership style that impacts on the behavior ofpeople by influencing them rather than focusing on task execution.
Theextent of matching my effectiveness as illustrated by the self-ratingassessment was high as per theFiedler’sContingency Model. This is because I was effective as a leader andthe group was effective in fulfilling the tasks that we set toundertake. Therefore, the overall performance of the group was highand the effectiveness of the group was good. This confirms theargument that leadership of an organization or a group determines theeffectiveness of the unit. According to Nahavandi (2014), the leaderis responsible for setting the pace and the performance levels of agroup by establishing goals that influence the group to work towardsachieving them. However the match may be limited by the changes inthe situation that necessitates the adoption of different leadershipstyles.
Theresults of the assessments showed variations among the group members.In the self rating score, the score was 8, showing a high regard forthe colleagues. In the leader-member relations assessment, the scorewas 12, showing a good relationship between the members of the groupwith the leader. In terms of power positions assessment, the scorewas 5, which illustrates my capacity to lead the group as confirmedby the task structure assessment score. This leads to a moderatecontrol in the situation control score.
Ingeneral, the Fiedler’s Contingency Model shows the relationshipbetween the leader’s effectiveness with the situationalcontingency. This relationship is as a consequence of the situationalfavorableness that is represented by the situational control and theleadership style. To explore the Fiedler’s Contingency Model, ourgroup undertook the assessment that indicated our match to theargument by theFiedler.The results matched with Fiedler’s model that leaders with high LPCperform better with their groups in situations of moderate control.This illustrates our leadership orientation and level ofeffectiveness of our leadership abilities and styles.
Nahavandi,A. (2014). TheArt and Science of Leadership, Seventh Edition.Upper Saddle River,
NewYork: Pearson Prentice Hall