Effective Leadership Issues - Assignment Example

Effective Leadership (Name) (Tutor) (Course) (Institution Affiliation) (Date) Question: What do Fiedler's contingency theory and the Hersey-Blanchard model tell us about leadership? How are these opposing theories helpful? Discuss, with reference to at least two theories or models of leadership. Effective Leadership Introduction Green (2012) states that leadership is one the most important concepts associated with the human activities. Equally, McKimm and Phillips (2009) buttress Green’s (2012) viewpoint by stating that leadership comes before anything else in the human activities. For instance, leadership starts right from the family unit to the national representation, which is involves politics, governing and the control of resources. Therefore, effective leadership helps organizations to stay focused in achieving its objectives. Thus, this paper aims at delineating two significant leadership theories: Fiedler’s contingency theory and Hersey-Blanchard theory with respect to leadership. The paper will also discuss other relevant concepts and theories of leadership to depict the significance of effective leadership in the society and organization. Fielder’s contingency theory According to the Fred Fielder’s contingency theory, there is no single way that has been proved to be the best for leaders to follow with regards to leading (Miller, Butler & Cosentino, 2004). In his model, Fiedler postulates that every situation often comes with its leadership requirements (Miller, Butler & Cosentino, 2004). In other words, Fiedler’s contingency theory contends that effective leadership depends typically on the control over the existing situation thus not depending on a particular leadership style. Accordingly, effective leadership is associated with an excellent leader-to-member relationship, whereby there are properly designed tasks with clear goals as well as procedures. Besides, the solution that a manager would settle on during a particular situation is often subject to the impinging situation. For instance, in a working environment, where the tasks involved are routine-oriented, a relatively directive leadership style would be appropriate to achieve the best performance results. On the contrary, in a dynamic working environment, whereby the tasks involved are unique and keep on changing, a more flexible as well as participative style of leadership would be appropriate. In his model, Fiedler highlighted three distinct situations that may dictate the condition of a managerial task. First, is the leader-member-relationship situation, which defines the relationship between the leader and the manager: how well they get along. The second situation is associated with the task structure. Under this situation, one would want to find out if the job is highly or fairly structured before initiating any leadership solution. Third is the position power, which is related to how much power or authority the manager has over his or her subordinates. Having identified the above situations, Fiedler went ahead to rate managers with the intent of knowing whether they were task-oriented or relationship-oriented. In effect, Fiedler discovered that task-oriented managers often perform well in good leader-member relationships situations (Miller, Butler & Cosentino, 2004). Moreover, Fiedler found out that task-oriented managers also performed best in situations that had structured tasks as well as both weak and strong position power conditions. Furthermore, Fiedler also learned that managers also perform well in situations that are characterized by unstructured tasks. This indicates that different situations often call managers to employ various kinds of leadership styles (Miller, Butler & Cosentino, 2004). Fiedler’s contingency theory counters the Great Man Theories, which hold that for one to be a leader he or she must naturally have in-born qualities (Cherry, 2010). A leader is naturally destined to lead and would always solve a considerable amount of situations. Unlike the Trait Approach model, which focuses on the leader’s traits, Fiedler’s contingency theory indicates that anybody can be a leader and situations are solved depending on the circumstance at hand. Thus, there are no definite leadership styles. Equally, Fiedler’s theory contingency theory also offsets the Trait Approach model as it somewhat developed from the Great Man theory as it maintains that a leader can be defined or identified by their traits. Nonetheless, according to Fiedler’s theory, a leader can only be evaluated by his or her ability to solve the existing situation. Hersey-Blanchard theory of Leadership On the other hand, the Hersey-Blanchard theory of leadership subscribes to the situational approach of leadership (Bruno & Lay, 2008). The Hersey-Blanchard theory contends that the developmental levels of a manager’s juniors or subordinates play a significant role in defining the appropriate leadership style to be employed. Hersey-Blanchard theory is based on the amount of socio-emotional support and direction the manager provides in a given situation as well as the level of maturity exhibited by his or her subordinates. Thus, according to the Hersey-Blanchard theory (Bruno & Lay, 2008), three critical aspects determine the leader’s ability to solve a problem task behavior, relationship behavior and maturity. Task behavior involves the efforts put in by the leader with regards to assigning duties and individuals to an employee or a group of subordinates. In other words, task behavior deals with how clear the manager will communicate to his or her subordinates telling the what, when, how, where and who to do it. The relationship behavior defines the level of communication the leader uses: two-way or multi-way communication styles. Besides, the relation behavior incorporates the level of listening, facilitating and supporting characteristics. Maturity refers to the ability and willingness of an individual to take responsibility for controlling his or her behaviors. Studies indicate that individuals tend to have differing levels of maturity based on the particular task , objective and function that a manager or leader is aimed at achieving with the help of the subordinate’s efforts. Therefore, the Hersey-Blanchard theory postulates that a leader’s behaviors falls into two categories: directive and supportive behavior (Bruno & Lay, 2008). The directive behavior leader is characterized by three features: one-way communication, close supervision of performance and followers’ roles clearly communicated. In the opposition, the supportive behavior leader is characterized by three aspects: two-way communication, facilitation of interaction and involves the follower in decision-making and the leader, listens, provides support as well as encouragement. The supportive behavior leader can be equated with the transformational style of leadership, whereby the leader motivates, inspires and injects intellectual stimulation to his or her follower (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). The Hersey-Blanchard theory of leadership also contradicts the Trait Approach, which advocates for individual’s traits to be the fundamental technique of identifying leaders. However, the Hersey-Blanchard theory relatively fits with Adair’s Action-Centred Leadership theory (2007), which postulates that leadership is determined by the particular situation that is solved. Moreover, the model holds that the leader should direct the job that should be done, support the individuals engaged in the job as well as coordinate and foster the team members. Importance of the Theories in Effective Leadership Both the Hersey-Blanchard theory and Fiedler contingency theory are significant as they indicate that leaders should always focus on the leadership challenge at hand. As such, they should not ride on the previous achievements thus compromising their character to lead and relate well with their followers. As Langton and Robbins (2007) posits, leadership is determined by the leader’s ability to involve his or her followers in every situation as the decisions made directly affects the performance of the followers. Further, the contingency models help leaders to be creative thus not depending on distinct leadership styles or techniques to lead. The theories discussed above are important as they indicate that an organization cannot function without an effective leadership. As (Johansson, 2007) posits, effective leadership is one of the fundamental aspects that a business needs in order to fulfill its mission. The workforce in the organization needs to be organized to perform their tasks accordingly. As such, they do not only suggest leadership, but also competent leadership. Similarly, Parry and Bryman (2006) postulates that effective leadership is inevitable in the organization as change based on the day to day activities must be understood for it to be formulated and implemented. A leader must possess unique, talent, skills, knowledge and competencies for him or her to bring lead bring success as well as give direction in the organization (Howell & Shamir, 2005). According to Fiedler’s contingency theory, effective leadership is essential in the organization as it gives the business direction. Leadership helps to control, motivate and support his or her followers (Howell & Shamir, 2005). Typically, there are two different types of subordinates: self-motivated and those who wait to be directed. Recent studies indicate that a majority of subordinates depend on their superiors for directions and decision making (Parry & Bryman, 2006). Thus, without effective leadership the organization will lag behind as far as the daily operations are concerned. For example, an employee who depends on supervision and direction to engage in the task may end up performing below the organizations’ expectations. The organizational success often depends on visionary leadership, which incorporates an innovative approach (Gesell, 2010). The theories also help organizations, governments and any form of association to understand the dire impacts that are related to the absence of leadership. Evidently, the Hersey-Blanchard theory and Fiedler contingency theory hold that leadership is often needed in addressing issues that arise in the working environment. The theories hold that an organization needs a flexible and innovative leader who uses his or her creativity to adapt in every situation (Cherry, 2010). Thus, for one to succeed in moving the organization in the right direction, he or she should not be static, but dynamic. The contingency theory, for instance, is very critical as it states that tasks must be defined and manageable. Conclusion In summary, the paper has clearly delineated Fiedler’s contingency theory and Hersey-Blanchard theory in regards to leadership. Moreover, the paper discussed some the significant issues evident in the two theories, giving a profound insight on how they related to effective leadership in the organization. Also, the paper evaluated the Fiedler’s contingency and Hersey-Blanchard theories with reference to the Trait Approach and Adair’s Action-Centred Leadership theory to get the deeper perspective of leadership. References Adair, J. E. 2007, Develop your leadership skills (Vol. 11). Kogan Page Publishers. Bruno, L. F., & Lay, E. G 2008, Personal values and leadership effectiveness. Journal of Business Research, 61(6), 678-683. Cherry, K 2010, Leadership theories–8 major leadership theories. About. com: Psychology. Veebimaterjal: http://psychology. about. com/od/leadership/p/leadtheories. htm. Gesell. I, M.ED, CSP 2010, Leadership and Legislative conference (AIA Grassroots) Agile Leadership: Innovative Approaches to Leading in Uncertain Times, Leadership and Legislative Conference, Washington, D.C Green, R. L 2012, Practicing the art of leadership: A problem-based approach to implementing the ISLLC standards. Pearson Higher Ed. Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B 2005, The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30, 96–112. Johansson, C 2007, Goffman's sociology: An inspiring resource for developing public relations theory. Public Relations Review, 33(3), 275-280. Judge, T. A, & Piccolo, R. 2004, Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology No.89, PP.755-768 Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B 2008, Leadership and the fate of organizations. American Psychologist, 63(2), 96. Langton, N., & Robbins, S 2007, Leadership. In N. Langton & S. Robbins. Organizational behavior: Concepts, controversies, applications (pp.386-426). Toronto: Prentice Hall Canada McKimm, J., & Phillips, K. (Eds.) 2009, Leadership and management in integrated services. SAGE. Miller, R. L., Butler, J., & Cosentino, C. J 2004, Followership effectiveness: an extension of Fiedler's contingency model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(4), 362-368. Parry, K. W., & Bryman, A 2006, Leadership in organization. In S. T. Clegg, C. Harry, T. B. Lawrence & W. R. Nord. The Sage handbook of organization studies (pp. 447-468). London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications. Read More