Fiedlers Contingency and Houses Path Theory - Term Paper Example

? Fiedler Contingency Theory vs House-Path Goal Theory This paper explores two major leadership theories: Robert House’s Goal Path Theory and Fred Fiedler’s Contingency Theory. Both the two leadership theories contend that leadership is contingent to certain factors. The contingency theory cites manager- group relations while the goal path theory cites a leader’s behavioral factors. The paper also gives insight into the applicability of these two theories in the workplace two day. It also strikes semblance between the two theories and their weak links. It concludes that none of the theories can be applied single handedly hence, they need to be correlated. Key words: contingency theory, goal path theory, leadership, and management. Fiedler Contingency Theory vs House-Path Goal Theory Introduction Leadership is increasingly becoming an interesting subject of study with various theories emerging to explain why some leaders are more effective than others are. Such theories open up our minds to the various leadership approaches and enrich our leadership skills. The theories include trait theories, power and influence theories, behavioral theories, contingency theories, and path theories. This essay will focus on Fiedler’s Contingency and House’s Path Theory as models of analyzing leadership (Lussier & Achua, 2010). Fiedler’s contingency theory and its applicability Fiedler’s contingency theory is the brainchild of Fred Fiedler a scientist who majored in leadership and personality. The model posits that there is no standard style of leadership instead; the leadership styles adopted depend on the situation and circumstances. As such, the leadership style depends on the situations favorable. The first step in the model is identifying the leadership style. Fiedler holds that leadership styles are fixed and can be measured through a model he refers to as the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale. The scale requires one to consider the person they enjoy working with the most and rate them for each factor then give them a score. The factors include friendliness, cooperation, pleasance, sincerity, loyalty, kindness, cheerfulness, openness, supportiveness, calmness, and acceptance (Nohria & Khurana, 2010). If the person scores high then you are a relationship-oriented leader. If the score is low then you are a task-oriented leader. This implies that task oriented leaders have more negative LPCs. Fiedler also refers to them as low-LPC leaders (Lussier & Achua, 2010). He explains that such leaders are effective in task completion and quick in organizing groups to accomplish a particular task. Relationship building is not their priority. On the other hand, the relationship-oriented leaders have LPCs that are more positive. They are also known as high-LPC leaders. They focus on personal connections and are effective in avoiding managerial conflict. They can also make complex decisions (Sadler, 2003). The next step to one’s type of leadership is through situational favorableness. Fiedler relates this to three factors. First is the leader-member relations, which is the trust, and confidence the team has in their leader. A leader that is trusted is in a more favorable situation than one who is not. Then there is the task structure, which is the clarity or vagueness of the task being performed. Unstructured tasks put the team and their leader in an unfavorable situation. The last is the leader’s position of power, the more power a leader has the more favorable the situation. Application Fiedler’s theory main premise is that a leader in a strict and task-oriented environment has different qualities from one in an open-minded environment. The theory helps to improve leader-member relationships by helping both the leaders and the group members to understand group problems and help solve them. It also allows for consultation and feedback within an organization. The model prepares leaders and other group members to work with difficult individuals (Nohria & Khurana, 2010). The model also proposes celebration when a task is completed and off-work activities such as excursions. Such structural adjustments help organizations to create a better workforce and are applied in most organizations today. Employers organize annual parties to motivate their employees and celebrate the work done within that year. Employers also raise the morale of their employees by giving bonuses and time off. This vindicates the structural adjustments proposed by the contingency theory and demonstrates its widespread applicability in today’s workforce. House’s Path-Goal Theory and its applicability House’s Path-Goal Theory describes the way leaders encourage and support their team members towards achieving their set goals by making the path clear. The theory posits that, in clarifying the path leaders may be directive or vague. Meaning they may help the followers or create more obstacles (Sadler, 2003). The variation in approach depends squarely on the situation this includes the followers’ difficulty at the job as well as their capability and motivation and other contextual factors. House and Mitchell explain four leadership styles. The first is supportive leadership that considers the needs of the team members and their welfare. This approach improves the self-esteem of the workers and serves best when work is stressful. The next approach is directive leadership where the leader gives guidance to the followers on what should be done. This applies best when the task is unstructured or complex and increases the follower’s sense of control and decreases the ambiguity of each role (Lussier & Achua, 2010). The bottom line of this approach is that leaders that guide their followers along the path that they should follow are effective. The theory also assumes that the leader can see the goal while the follower cannot. This paints the follower as dependent on the leader but rational at the same time and that the appropriate methods depend on the situation. The weak link of this theory is that if leaders are not rational the course of action may be just a delusion jeopardizing group members. The whole group stands a chance of falling if the leader has many flaws. Application Path goal theory has an intuitive appeal because of its applicability at the workplace. It emphasizes on the importance of the leaders to recognize the needs of the people especially the subordinates within their working conditions. It proposes the use of appropriate styles of leadership to enable the subordinates achieve their individual goals (Sadler, 2003). Indeed this is workable given that the input and output of every employee is what counts in the very end. If each of them is encouraged to reach their goal, the goal of the entire organization would increase. This in turn increases the benefits within that organization. The implication of this leadership model is that leaders need not adopt multiple leadership styles and that they should tailor their leadership styles to the characteristics of their subordinates and the situation at hand. This ensures flexibility of the leadership and increases the returns of the organization tremendously. Because of the theory’s insistence on the role of the leader’s behaviour rather than their traits, the theory encourages responsible and accountable leadership. Therefore, this theory has several applications in many leadership training programs (Lussier & Achua, 2010). Similarly, the theory pays a lot of respect to group participation making it more amenable to organized groups that are both knowledgeable and intelligent. This works perfectly n today’s environment where individual input counts. This theory also has some common sense to it and its propositions are easy to convey (Sadler, 2003). This analogy of the path to successful leadership is easy to visualize. Thus, the goal path theory stands out as a workable approach towards leadership in our society today. Similarities and contrasts Critics of Fiedler’s theory find it inflexible because of its stance that leadership styles are natural hence fixed. Fiedler proposes the most effective way to manage the situation is to change the leader. It does not give room for a leader to change or adjust. For instance, if a low-LPC leader is in charge of a cohesive group serving a structured task, then the leader is in a weak position and should be replaced by a high-LPC leader. The goal path theory on the other hand provides for the flexibility of the leader (Nohria & Khurana, 2010). It essentially proposes the best way of leadership and one could easily mingle between directive and supportive. The leader does not have to leave for better leadership to be experienced, they can always juggle between supportive and directive or the both of them Similarly, it is difficult to tell one’s leadership style using the Least Preferred Coworker Scale if they fall in the middle. Fiedler creates room for second guessing one’s appropriate leadership style through this loophole (Sadler, 2003). Since the leadership style of a particular leader is fixed, this creates a lot of confusion. Goal path theory gives the leader the freedom to adapt to any of the three leadership styles depending on their personalities. This ensures that leaders are not tagged a leadership style that do not define them. One of the major differences between Contingency and Path theories is that the Path Theory stresses on the personality of the leader while the Contingency Theory emphasizes on the circumstances. Path theory also emphasizes motivation and charisma as opposed to Contingency Theory that emphasize on natural leadership skills. Path theory therefore proposes the most professional and workable leadership model because of the permanence that it provides. One’s personality is always permanent therefore; when a leader follow the path theory, they are likely to make decisions that are more consistent (Lussier & Achua, 2010). Since contingency theory is dependent on the situation at the time, there is no permanence in leadership. The lack of consistency may ail the smooth running of an organization hence a poor leadership skill. Path theory is like an extension of Contingency theory in the sense that it shows the way that a group should take. It shows the struggle and work to be put in place to reach the team goals and the leaders who shine through emerges the motivator (Nohria & Khurana, 2010). This resembles Fiedler’s Contingency Theory that holds that a leader is effective if they are task-oriented. Both the two theories cite task as the central argument at some point showing that the completion of task is an important factor in successful leadership. Both path-goal theory and Fiedler’s contingency theory are contingency theories. In path-goal theory, a leader’s success in contingent on the leader’s behaviour while in contingency theory, a leader’s success is dependent upon the leader’s relationship with the workers (Sadler, 2003). Conclusion There is no leadership theory that is singularly applicable or defines, and explains the dynamics of leadership satisfactorily. The field of leadership has a plethora of theories that if applied wisely and correlated, can lead to better leadership performance. Both Fiedler’s contingency theory and house’s goal path theory give an insight into the appropriate mechanisms of leadership and provide both diverse and divergent views on the subject of leadership (Nohria & Khurana, 2010). Goal-path theory provides managerial skills while Contingency theories provide team-building skills all of which are essential in the management of an organization. References Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2010). Leadership: Theory, application, skill development. Australia: SouthWestern/Cengage Learning. Nohria, N., & Khurana, R. (2010). Handbook of leadership theory and practice: An HBS centennial colloquium on advancing leadership. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business Press. Sadler, P. (2003). Leadership. London: Kogan Page Ltd. Read More