You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Fiedler Contingency Theory vs House-Path Goal Theory
Pages 6 (1506 words)
Fiedler Contingency Theory vs House-Path Goal Theory Name Institution Instructor Date Abstract 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.
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. ...
Not exactly what you need?