Theoretical Reflections Essay, Research Paper

Theoretical Reflections & # 8211 ; Contingency Theory

Research Notes

( Considerations for Technology Driven Reform )

Contingency theory suggests that appropriate behaviour in a given state of affairs

depends on a broad assortment of variables and that each state of affairs is different.

What might work in one organisation, set of issues, or employee group might non

work in a different organisation with its ain set of issues and employees.

Effectiveness of schools, for illustration, is contingent upon the leading manner

of the principal and the favourableness of the state of affairs ( Hendricks, 1997 ) . This

methodological analysis acknowledges that no 1 best manner exists to pull off in a given

state of affairs and those situational variables, from both the internal and external

environments impact on leading pattern.

Leadership manners can non be to the full explained by behavioural theoretical accounts. The

state of affairs in which the group is runing besides determines the manner of

leading that is adopted. Several theoretical accounts exist which attempt to understand the

relationship between manner and state of affairs ; the four major theories consisting my

eventuality class are Fiedler & # 8217 ; s Contingency Model, Situational Theory,

Path-Goal Theory, and the Vroom-Yetton Leadership Model.

Fiedler & # 8217 ; s Contingency Model

Fiedler & # 8217 ; s theoretical account assumes that group public presentation depends on:

Leadership manner, described in footings of undertaking motive and relationship

motive.

Situational eventualities, determined by three factors:

1. Leader-member dealingss & # 8211 ; Degree to which a leader is accepted and

supported by the group members.

2. Task construction & # 8211 ; Extent to which the undertaking is structured and defined, with

clear ends and processs.

3. Position power & # 8211 ; The ability of a leader to command subsidiaries through

wages and penalty.

High degrees of these three factors give the most favourable state of affairs, low

degrees, the least favourable. Relationship-motivated leaders are most effectual

in reasonably favourable state of affairss. Task-motivated leaders are most effectual at

either terminal of the graduated table. Fiedler suggests that it may be easier for leaders to

alter their state of affairs to accomplish effectivity, instead than alter their

leading manner.

Fielder, F. ( 1967 ) . A theory of leading effectivity. New York: McGraw.

This theory defines factors that find how the leader & # 8217 ; s personality and

manners of interacting with others affects the group public presentation and

organisation. The rightness of the leading manner for maximising group

public presentation is contingent upon the favourableness of the group-task state of affairs.

Group public presentation is related to both the leading manner and the grade to

which the state of affairs provides the leader with the chance to exercise influence.

Fiedler ( 1967 ) defines the group, leader, and leader effectivity:

The Group: A set of persons who portion a common destiny and are

interdependent in the sense that an event that affects one member will impact

them all.

Leader: The person in the group given the undertaking of directing and

organizing task-relevant group activities or who in the absence of a

designated leader, carries the primary duty for executing these

maps in the group.

Leader Effectiveness: “ & # 8230 ; Defined in footings of the group & # 8217 ; s end product, it & # 8217 ; s

morale, and the satisfactions of its members.

Feidler besides classifies groups harmonizing to the work dealingss among the

members:

Interacting groups: Require close coordination of several squad members on the

public presentation of the primary undertaking. Many undertakings besides require the stopping point and

coincident coordination of two of more people.

Co-acting groups: Members work together on a common undertaking, but each member

does their occupation comparatively independently of other squad members.

Antagonizing groups: Persons work together for the intent of

negotiating and accommodating conflicting sentiments and intents. Each member plants

toward accomplishing his or her ain terminals at the disbursal of the other, to an extent.

Situational Theory ( Paul Hersey & A ; Kenneth Blanchard )

This theory suggests that leading manner should be matched to the adulthood

of the subsidiaries. Maturity is assessed in relation to a specific undertaking and has

two parts:

Psychological adulthood & # 8211 ; Their assurance and ability and preparedness to

accept duty.

Job adulthood & # 8211 ; Their relevant accomplishments and proficient cognition.

As the subsidiary adulthood additions, leading should be more

relationship-motivated than task-motivated. For four grades of subsidiary

adulthood, from extremely mature to extremely immature, leading can dwell of:

Delegating to subsidiaries.

Participating with subsidiaries.

Selling thoughts to subsidiaries.

Stating subordinates what to make

Lord, Robert G. and Maher Karen J. ( 1991 ) Leadership and Information

Processing: Linking Percepts and Performance. Massachusetts: Unwin Hyman,

Inc.

Situational Model of Hersey and Blanchard. & # 8211 ; stress the importance for the

leader to see the phase of organisational development of each of their

followings and to accommodate their type of leading to the followings developmental

degree. Hersey and Blanchard talk about the leader and stress the influence of

their actions on the organisation, through their followings. The leader can

comparison to the influence of the executive in Lord and Maher & # 8217 ; s theories. Both of

the theories emphasize the influence of manner or actions of the leader on the

result of the follower or organisation.

Lord and Maher in Leadership and Information Processing: Associating Percepts

and Performance ( 1991 ) stress that executive degree actions can impact an

organisation & # 8217 ; s public presentation. Their methodological analysis incorporates leading and

information processing, perceptual and societal procedures, leading and

organisational public presentation, and stableness, alteration, and information processing.

Their attack to understanding leading is to develop a comprehensive theory

turn toing both leading perceptual experiences and organisational public presentation. They

believe that “ theory in any scientific country is an on-going societal procedure

and stress the possibilities of alteration, ” “ to understand leading

perceptual experiences it is indispensable to understand how people process information. ”

( p13 ) .

Lord and Maher discuss direct and indirect effects of leading on

public presentation, leading sequence, a theoretical account of organisational public presentation, and

executive leading and organisational public presentation. In discoursing direct and

indirect effects of leading Lord and Maher explain the differences between

these two agencies of leading. Direct means refer to “ those leading

activities which explicitly influence the behaviour of subsidiaries or the

schemes of organisations. ” ( p169 ) This is the footing for most bing

leading and direction theory. Indirect means involve “ set uping

certain conditions, such as socialisation processes or civilization, which so

affect subsidiary and organisational public presentation. ” ( p. 171 ) Indirect agencies

organize a powerful manner of impacting subsidiary and organisational public presentation.

Lord and Maher so describe the effects of direct and indirect agencies of

leading in lower and executive degrees of an organisation. In short, their

decision is that high-ranking executives may hold trouble being perceived as

leaders.

Oliver, D. L. ( 1955 ) . A Solomon Island Society, Kinship and Leadership Among

the Siuai of Bougainville. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Douglas Oliver ( 1955 ) in his survey of a Solomon Island society Tells narratives

that the Siuai leader is comfy covering with all the facets of Siuai life.

This is an illustration of situational methodological analysis, which is one that states that the

state of affairs is the chief constituent of what determines what a leader will make.

DePree, M. ( 1989 ) Leadership Is An Art. New York: Dell

The Situational Model of Vroom and Yetton & # 8211 ; centres on the interaction

between situational variables and the features of the leader and/or the & lt ;

/p >

follower. Max DePree ( 1989 ) identifies “ rolling leaders ” , who use their

particular endowments and react fleetly and efficaciously. The illustration that he uses is

a physician covering with an exigency state of affairs. He says, “ Rolling leaders are

those indispensable people in our lives who are at that place when we need them ” ( DePree,

1989, p. 48 ) . These people take charge in changing grades when a state of affairs demands

immediate attending, construction and action.

Hollander, E. P. ( 1964 ) Leaders, Groups, and Influence. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Another facet of this attack found in this book is that individuals function

as leaders in a peculiar clip and topographic point, and both these can change. A 2nd

attack found in this book regaring leading is called the situational

attack. The situational attack looks at the specific state of affairss and the

undertakings associated with it to find whether or non alone leading

features could be seen as being indispensable. Hollander looks at this

appproach as “ It is in the nature of situational demands that they

name Forth certain outlooks for leading, and these may be fulfilled by

assorted persons in the state of affairs. ” ( p. 5 ) This book besides differenciates

between the trait attack and the situational attack by saying, “ & # 8230 ; the

situational attack conceives of leading in footings of map performed,

instead than in footings of prevailing traits of the leader. ” ( p. 5 )

Path-Goal Theory ( Robert House )

Robert House suggests that the leader in a figure of ways can impact the

public presentation, satisfaction, and motive of a group:

Offer wagess for the accomplishment of public presentation ends.

Clarifying waies towards these ends.

Removing public presentation obstructions.

A individual may make these by following a certain leading manner, harmonizing to

the state of affairs:

Directive leading & # 8211 ; Specific advice is given to the group and land regulations

are established.

Supportive leading & # 8211 ; Good dealingss exist with the group and sensitiveness

to subordinates & # 8217 ; demands is shown.

Participative leading & # 8211 ; Decision devising is based on group audience and

information is shared with the group.

Achievement-oriented leading & # 8211 ; Challenging ends are set and high

public presentation is encouraged while demoing assurance in the groups & # 8217 ; ability.

Supportive behaviour additions group satisfaction, peculiarly in nerve-racking

state of affairss, while directing behaviour is suited to equivocal state of affairss. It is

besides suggested that leaders who have influence upon their higher-ups can increase

group satisfaction and public presentation.

Vroom-Yetton Leadership Model

This theoretical account suggests the choice a leading manner for doing a determination.

There are five decision-making manners:

Autocratic 1 & # 8211 ; Problem is solved utilizing information already available.

Autocratic 2 & # 8211 ; Additional information is obtained from group before leader

makes determination.

Consultative 1 & # 8211 ; Leader discusses job with subsidiaries separately,

before doing a determination.

Consultative 2 & # 8211 ; Problem is discussed with the group before make up one’s minding.

Group 2 & # 8211 ; Group decides upon job, with leader merely moving as chair.

The manner is chosen by the consideration of seven inquiries, which form a

determination tree. This is described in Leadership and Decision Making, by V.H.Vroom

and P.W.Yetton, pp.41-42, published by University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973.

The Transactional Model

Hollander, E. P. ( 1964 ) Leaders, Groups, and Influence. New York: Oxford

University Press.

The transactional attack by Edwin Hollander ( 1964 ) states that “ the

interaction between a peculiar leader and a peculiar follower will alter

over clip based on such things as the altering assurance degree of the leader

and of the follower, and other environmental alterations that may be elusive and are

frequently hard to document. ” A “ behind the scenes ” leader, whose

behaviour prevents a crisis from go oning in the first topographic point, might travel

unnoticed, thankless and uncontrived. This sort of leader develops the

strength of others and furthers the effectivity of the organisation.

Hollander, Edwin P. ( 1978 ) ; Leadership Dynamics & # 8211 ; a practical usher to

effectual relationships. New York: The Free Press ( Macmillan Publishing Co. , Inc )

Netherlander uses this book to exemplify his points on leading and to

stress his positions presented in as the Transactional Approach of leading.

His primary focal point is to demo leading as being something which is dependent on

many different forces, few of which any designated leader may hold control over.

Though he emphasizes features which are utile to leaders, he besides

explores how the same features can impede the leaders effectiveness –

which leading is, for Hollander, measured by. Along with features the

leader may or may non keep, Hollander explores features of the followings

and the state of affairs.

To be believable as a leader is indispensable, as is the ability to equilibrate the

importance placed on undertaking induction and group relationships. Hollander gives

illustrations through out the book spying how indispensable a complete apprehension of

the state of affairs, and oneUs co-workers/ subsidiaries, in order to carry through a end

( another much needed component in effectual leading ) . Though he stresses the

importance of the realisation of all these facets by the leader, Hollander besides

farther develops the function the follower dramas in impacting the leader and the

state of affairs. Not merely does the leader demand to be in touch with the followings, the

followings need to be in touch with the leader and each group affects the other

both in positive and negative ways. Some of the things on which the leaders

success depends are the outlooks, the personalities. the competency and the

motive of the followings every bit good as the construction, puting, and resources the

state of affairs provides. These things are beyond the leaders initial control yet are

of import considerations.

Along with the interaction between those three belongingss ( leader, follower,

and situational features ) , things to maintain in head is how the leader

original obtained the place, how the place has been kept by the leader and

what factors have had what consequence on the state of affairs. Hollander stress the

importance of holding legitimacy of place non through hierarchy but by

competence. He besides stress the importance of being able to acknowledge alteration

go oning within the state of affairs. Whether planed or non, alteration will take topographic point to

some extent and a good leader should be able to acknowledge the alteration, how it

will/ could consequence the state of affairs, and what therefore should be done.

Hollanders theory comes under the header of Interactional theories ( those

which recognize the importance of the state of affairs and the follower ) , nevertheless he

claims a big difference is in his realisation of the consequence the follower has

on the leader and frailty versa whereas most other Interactionl ( or the RoriginalS

theory ) concentrates on the leaders function in working with the follower and how

that work reflects on their leading, though the follower does non take an

RactiveS portion in impacting the leader and state of affairs & # 8211 ; something Netherlander does

recognize.

HollanderUs attack besides reflects that of the Contingency theoretical account ( that

leaders and state of affairss should be matched because certain state of affairss call for

certain leading manners and leaders can non alter their manner easy so they

demand to RfitU in right places based on appraisal of the state of affairs and the

leader ) though he differs from Fiedler and Chemers in that he suggests more

ability of the leader to organize or alter the state of affairs. He besides defines and

explains certain tactics of leading which he finds to be of import ( such as

being somewhat flexible in rules/ definitions in order to let followings the

opportunity to research the state of affairs and develop as people ) which can be fulfilled to

a greater or lesser grade by all people whereas Fiedler and Chemers expect a

realisation of 1s personal strong points and the application of them.