Essays on Fielders Contingency Model and Hersey-Blanchard Model of Leadership Coursework

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Fielder’ s Contingency Model and Hersey-Blanchard Model of Leadership" is an outstanding example of management coursework.   Leadership involves giving direction to 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 the aim of showing that the leadership style used is contingent on factors which include; people, task, environmental variables, and organization.

This school of thought is supported by theories such as the 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 say about leadership and how the theories are helpful. This will be achieved with reference to theories and models of leadership. Analysis of theories Fielders’ contingency model According to the 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 relationships. 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 a good leader-member relationship, tasks are structured and the 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 judgment about whether a leader is good or bad. Different managers have a differing preference for leadership (McFadden, Eakin, Beck-Frazier & McGlone, 2005). Hersey-Blanchard model of leadership Hersey-Blanchard's model of leadership also takes a situational based approach to leadership.

The model claims that the development level of the leader’ s followers determines the type of leadership style to be used. This is based on task and relationship behavior 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 us 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. The participating style involves being able to share and help in making decisions on the best way to complete a high-quality job. Lastly, the delegating style occurs when the manager provides very little specific information.

There are little direction and support provided by the followers. It is important to realize that Hershey-Blanchard situational leadership theory has its own drawbacks. This is especially due to the fact that it does not have experimental verification that can prove its validity. There has been very little testing on the model (Dean, 2002).


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.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us