Fielders Contingency Model and Hersey-Blanchard Model of Leadership - Coursework Example

Name Class Unit Introduction Leadership involves giving direction to the followers. This is through persuading, inspiring and having an influence on the attitudes of others (Kaiser & DeVries, 2000). Leadership and management are different since a manager is not necessarily the boss. In order to fully understand the leadership phenomenon, various theories, models and approaches have been developed. Contingency-situational leadership theories were developed with an aim of showing that the leadership style used is contingent on factors which includes; people, task, environmental variables and organisation. This school of thought is supported by theories such as Fielders contingency model and The Hersey-Blanchard Model of Leadership among others (Dean, 2002). This essay analyses Fielder’s contingency model and Hersey-Blanchard Model of Leadership. This will help in understanding what the two models says about leadership and how the theories are helpful. This will be achieved with reference to theories and models of leaderships. Analysis of theories Fielders’ contingency model According to Fielders Contingency model, there is no definite way in which managers are supposed to lead (Yukl, 2011). The model claims that situations determine the best leadership style required by a manager. Fielder based the theory on three situations that were supposed to define the condition of a managerial task (Deckard, 2009). The situations are; leaders number relations, task structure and position power. Leaders’ member relations look at the level of employees and manager relationship. This involves rating the managers on whether they are task oriented or relationship oriented. When a manager is task oriented, they are able to do better in situations where there is good leader-member relationship, tasks are structured and position of power is either strong or weak. Managers did well in situations where tasks were unstructured and there was a strong position of power. They also did well in situations where leaders’ member relations were poor. Relationship oriented managers did well in other situations based on Fielders experiment. The main weakness of the fielder’s leadership theory is the fact that it is hard to make a judgement whether a leader is good or bad. Different managers have a differing preference of leadership (McFadden, Eakin, Beck-Frazier & McGlone, 2005). Hersey-Blanchard model of leadership Hersey-Blanchard model of leadership also takes a situational based approach to leadership. The model claims that the development level of leader’s followers determines the type of leadership style to be used. This is based on task and relationship behaviour that the leader is expected to give based on the development level of the followers. Based on Blanchard, the development level of the subordinates is the key determinant of the appropriate leadership style. This leads to four types of leadership which are; directing, coaching, supporting and delegating (Armache, 2009). There are four leadership styles that are available for the managers. These styles are; telling, selling, participating and delegating. Telling is where the leader tells the followers what to do and when. The leader defines the roles expected for the job. Through selling, the leaders give the followers structured instructions and also provides support. Participating style involves being able to share and help in making decisions on the best way to complete a high-quality job. Lastly, delegating style occurs when the manager provides very little specific information. There is little direction and support provided by the followers. It is important to realise that Hershey-Blanchard situational leadership theory have its own drawbacks. This is especially due to the fact that it does not have experimental verification that can prove its validity. There have been very little testing on the model (Dean, 2002). Impacts of the theories on leadership The contingency theory looks at the context approach that is abandoned by behavioral and traits theory. The main focus of the theory is on the situational variables. The leadership style is based on the personal characteristics of a leader and context (Liu & Liu, 2006). An effective leader is supposed to have the ability to adapt their characteristics to the context. The performance of a group can be understood based on the fielders’ contingency theory. This is through looking at the group performance as a result of the characteristic of the leader and the available leader control over the situation. A leader can either be task focused or relational (McFadden et al., 2005). The situational based theories support that leaders are expected to base their actions on the available situation. Deferent types of decision making require different forms of leadership according to these theories (Yukl, 2006). These leadership theories emphasize the need for flexibility. Situational and contingent theories require that leaders should have varying responses (Dean, 2002). The situation varies and hence the leadership is expected to vary to match the situation. The leader is thus expected to match different situations that may arise. Based on the contingency theory, leaders’ characteristics and ability to control a situation determines the performance. This implies that a successful leader should be able to incorporate their orientation and situation at work. The leader-member relations thus play a very vital role in the performance of a leader. The elements of context will always determine the style that a leader will use (Yukl, 2011). A leader is expected to adapt their style of leadership to the ability of their subordinates to accomplish available tasks (Yukl, 2006). This is according to Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory. A leader is expected to ensure that their type of leadership is based on the maturity of the subordinates. Also, leadership strategies should be able to fit the situation they are working in. for example, in case there is a flood, the best type of a leader should be task oriented. This is someone who has the ability to accomplish a mission in an efficient manner without having to ask questions. A relationship-oriented leader fits situations where followers do not like being assigned tasks by superiors or structured tasks (Amiri, 2010). The cause of effective and ineffective leadership is the structural features rather than the leader characteristics. The behaviour of the leaders is constrained in the situations that they are in. this makes leadership a dependent variable. The claim that leaders characteristics are irrelevant in organisation effectiveness are based on; leaders have limited power, leaders selected goes through same procedure which screens their characteristic and the remaining differences among the people are always overwhelmed by the demands of their role in leadership. The assumption shows that individual difference in characteristics has very little role in leadership (Armache, 2009). There are several leadership models that can be discussed in relation to Fielder and Hershey Blanchard leadership models. The first model is the managerial grid. This model focuses more on the leader concern for task and people with an aim of determining the outcome. The second one is the four framework approach. This model uses four concepts that are common in order to guide the leader in a given situation. Lastly, situational leadership model which is used to guide leader on the type of coaching that they require in order to develop employee in a given situation (McFadden et al., 2005). Situational and contingency theories, provides four types of leadership behaviours. The leadership behaviours are; team leader, an authoritarian leader, country club leader, impoverished leader (Bolman & Deal, 2011). A team leader is able to give leadership through acting as an example to the followers. This is aimed at ensuring that the followers are able to deliver their highest potential. These are leaders who are capable of directing very successful teams. Authoritarian leaders have high task orientation and low relationship. These are types of leaders who focus much on the task and are very hard on their followers. The expect followers to do what asked without questioning. Authoritarian leaders are intolerant to dissent making it hard for the subjects to contribute. A country club leader has a low task and low relationship. These are leaders who are not committed to the task accomplishment and allow their followers to do what they want. They leave the teams to suffer from the power struggles (Chaudhari & Dhar, 2006). Based on situational and contingency theory, it is evident that a good leader combines the four models to come up with the best style (Reinke, 2004). Based on the four frame approach, leaders operate in one of four categories. The categories are; political framework, structural framework, symbolic framework and human resource framework. Each approach is appropriate for a given situation. It is also important to note that relying on one approach only is ineffective. There is a need for a leader to be aware of all approaches and their limitations. Based on Blanchard, leadership is being able to provide the right amount of supervision and support. This helps in ensuring that the organisation has the best learning and development environment (McFadden, Eakin, Beck-Frazier, & McGlone, 2005). Both leadership theories show that situation have a great influence on the leader behaviour. The leader also has the capability to influence the situational factors. Fielder adds the individual personality into the situational theories (Deckard, 2009). This helps one to understand why there is the difference in performance of organisations that are operating within the same situation. Situational leadership theories contain an intuitive appeal. They are able to acknowledge the importance of having followers and shows that leaders can improve followers’ capacity through motivation (Kaiser & DeVries, 2000). Conclusion The analysis shows that Fiedler's contingency theory and the Hersey-Blanchard model are vital to understanding leadership. The theories show the role which situation plays in shaping leadership behaviours. Both theories are able to show that varying decision making requires different forms of leadership. The theories also emphasize on the need for flexibility in leadership. Leaders should be ready to match the situations that arise. The cause of effective and ineffective leadership is the structural features rather than the leader characteristics. Both theories provide four leadership behaviours; team leader, an authoritarian leader, country club leader, impoverished leader. A good leader combines the four behaviour models to come up with the best style. In conclusion, it is important to note that despite the leaders being influenced by the situation, they have the capability to influence the situational factors. References Amiri, M. P., Amiri, M. P., & Amiri, A. P. 2010. “A Dynamic Model of Contingency Leadership Effectiveness.” Clinical Leadership & Management Review, Vol.24, no.2. Armache, J. 2009. Leadership: The Art of Moving Forward Without Leaving Anyone Behind. Leadership & Organizational Management Journal, Vol.2, no.3, p.243. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. 2011. Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership. John Wiley & Sons. Chaudhari, S., & Dhar, U. 2006. “Development of the Leader Behaviour Assessment Profile.” Irish Journal of Management, Vol.27, no.2, p. 33. Dean, P. J. 2002. “Leadership, Leaders, and Leading: Part Two.” Performance Improvement Quarterly, Vol.15, no.2, p.3-14. Deckard, G. J. 2009. “Contingency theories of leadership.” Organizational Behavior in Health Care, Vol.3, no.2, p.191. Kaiser, R. B., & DeVries, D. L. 2000. Leadership styles. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley & Sons. Liu, J., & Liu, X. 2006. “A critical review of leadership research development.” International Journal,Vol.4, no1, p.3-11. McFadden, C., Eakin, R., Beck-Frazier, S., & McGlone, J. 2005. “Major approaches to the study of leadership.” Academic Exchange Quarterly, Vol.9, no.2, p.71. Reinke, S. J. 2004. “Service before self: Towards a theory of servant leadership.” Global Virtue Ethics Review, Vol.5, no.3, p.30-57. Yukl, G. 2011. Contingency theories of effective leadership. The SAGE handbook of leadership, p.286-298. Yukl, G. 2006, Leadership in Organizations, New Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall. Read More