Leadership and Motivation: Fiedler’s Contingency Model

DISCUSSION QUESTION 2-1
MB661 Leadership and Motivation
Lesson 2: Leadership Theory
Upon completion of the Required Readings, write a thorough, well-planned narrative answer to the following discussion question. Rely on your Required Readings and the Lecture and Research Update for specific information to answer the discussion question, but turn to your original thoughts when asked to apply, evaluate, analyze, or synthesize the information. Your Discussion Question response should be both grammatically and mechanically correct, and formatted in the same fashion as the question itself. If there is a Part A, your response should identify a Part A, etc. In addition, you must appropriately cite all resources used in your responses and document in a bibliography using APA style.
Discussion Question 1 (50 points)
Define the leadership and situation factors included in Fiedler’s Contingency Model. What are the primary predictions of the model?
Grading Rubric
Please refer to the rubric on the following page for the grading criteria for this assignment.
You will receive the greatest benefit from the following Lecture and Research Update if you first read this narrative, review the lesson, study the Required Readings, then come back to this section and carefully re-read this Lecture and Research Update. The “lecture” portion of this narrative focuses on issues from the textbook that need further explanation, while the “research update” portion integrates supportive information from recent professional academic and trade articles with the textbook information.
The history of the field of leadership can be viewed by dividing it into the three eras of trait, behavior, and contingency. Both the trait and the behavior approaches are looking for simple explanations of what defines leadership and leadership effectiveness. Both approaches are focused on the leader. The trait approach seeks to identify leader traits that differentiate between leaders and followers and that allow for identification of who is an effective leader. Although the research identified some traits, it was generally not successful in identifying one or a set of traits that define leaders.
The behavior approach is also focused on the leader, but considers behaviors rather than traits. The advantage of behaviors is that they are more easily observed and measured and can be taught. The behavior approach identified two broad categories of behaviors, task-structuring and relationship-consideration, as the two primary leadership behaviors. However, as was the case in the trait research, it was not clear which set of behaviors is associated with effective leadership.
The early theories of leadership also focus on contingency models that constitute the foundation of modern leadership. The contingency approach to leadership states that understanding leadership requires consideration of both the leader and the leadership situation. There is no single best way to lead and what makes a leader effective depends on the characteristics of the leadership situation. For leaders to be effective they need to match the situation either by having different traits, using different behaviors, or by changing the situation. The following models are considered: Fiedler’s Contingency model, the Normative Decision model, Path-goal theory, Substitutes for leadership, and Leader-Member Exchange.
1. Fiedler’s Contingency Model predicts that different leadership styles will be effective in different levels of situational control. The task- and relationship-motivated leaders act differently in different situations. In high- and low-control situations, the task-motivated leader groups perform best, whereas in moderate control, the relationship-motivated leader groups perform well. Fiedler assumes that the leader’s style is stable and not easily changeable; however leadership situations can change either randomly or as a result of the leader’s actions. The leader’s efforts should be to adapt the situations to fit his/her style.
a. Leader Style: The Least Preferred Co-Worker scale (LPC) is presented as the measure of leader style in the contingency model.
i. Task-motivated/low LPC individuals are described as being primarily motivated by task accomplishment.
ii. Relationship-motivated/high LPC individuals are described as primarily motivated by good interpersonal relationships.
iii. The socio-independent/middle LPC individuals are described as generally being unconcerned with others’ opinions.
b. Situational Control: The three elements described in this section are combined to provide an indicator of the amount of control the leader has over the situation.
i. Leader-member relations is the first and most important element of situational control in the contingency model. It is defined as the overall level of trust and cohesion in the group.
ii. Task structure, which is the second element of situational control, refers to the degree to which the task has clear goals, a clear answer, the number of possible solutions, and the availability of feedback.
iii. Position power is the least influential element of situational control and refers to the leader’s ability to hire and fire and reward subordinates.
2. The Normative Decision Model focuses on decision making, assumes that the leaders can change his or her style, and is concerned with decision quality as the criterion for effectiveness. Leaders’ decision styles range from autocratic, to consultative, to group decision making.
a. Autocratic styles are most effective when the leader has high expertise, little time, and the group is supportive and likely to agree with the leader’s decision. Furthermore, if followers cannot agree on a solution or course of action, the leader can use an autocratic style of decision making. The leader should make decisions alone when there is no time, he or she has all the information that is needed, the leader has support from the group, or followers cannot agree among themselves on a course of action. In other situations, the leader should rely on participation to varying degrees. The model has a narrow focus on decision making, but has been well supported and has broad application to real-life leadership decision making. The focus is on teaching the leader to understand the leadership situation.
b. Consultation should be used when followers’ support is essential in accomplishing the goal, there is time to consult, followers can agree on a solution, or when the leader does not have the necessary information or expertise.
c. Group decision making should be used when there is time and followers work well together and can agree on a decision.
3. Path-Goal Theory focuses on the role of the leader to clear paths for subordinates to accomplish goals. The exchange between the leader and followers centers around this obstacle removal role and the exchange of guidance or support from the leader for performance and satisfaction from followers.
a. The two central hypotheses of the model are: when the task is structured, the leader’s supportive behavior leads to follower satisfaction, whereas when the task is ambiguous, the leader’s structuring behavior leads to satisfaction.
b. Lack of consistent research findings is suggested to be one of the major limitations of path-goal theory. However, the model’s focus on followers’ perception of the task and the role of the leader as obstacle remover provide interesting areas of applications.
4. Substitutes for leadership model can be very useful in the current environment of self-managed teams and empowerment where the leader may intentionally use the model’s findings to set up organizational and team substitutes to replace the traditional leadership functions. Substitutes for leadership can be used to improve the effectiveness of the leader and to free his/her time for other tasks. They can be very positive if followers are able to do much of their tasks without close supervision, or if the group provides sources of support and motivation. In the most positive situation, substitutes can empower followers to do their job without having to constantly rely on their leader.
As discussed by Kriger & Zhovtobryukh (2013), “High internal complexity combined with a turbulent competitive environment will require a more complex form of strategic leadership that encourages not only benefiting from multiple sources of ideas but also simultaneously aligning opposite forces within the firm toward achieving common goals. Strategic leadership networks facilitate these via distribution of strategic leadership and development of the firm culture.” (p. 430)
In the most negative situation, substitutes can undermine the leaders’ ability to lead and guide followers. If the group acts against accomplishment of goals, if the organization does not provide the leader with enough power or resources to influence the group, if there is so much physical distance and little contact to maintain close group cohesion, the leader will lose his/her ability to influence the group.
5. The Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) model focuses on the impact of existence of in-groups and out-groups on organizational performance and leadership effectiveness. The model’s lack of clarity regarding the factors that lead to the development of an out- vs. in-group relationship and the scarcity of research regarding the impact of in- and out-groups on organizations are its major limitations. In many cultures, for example, in-group membership is assumed to be based on performance. In collectivistic cultures such as Malaysia and many middle-eastern countries, in-group membership tends to be based on family and clan membership.
The strength of the model is in its intuitive appeal and its potential use for making in- and out-groups effective. Particularly, the use of in-groups can be highly beneficial when membership is fluid and based on performance rather than personal factors. Examples of the danger of selecting in-group members who are highly homogeneous are presented with focus on top-level executive teams. This homogeneity can be partially blamed for the recent lack of performance of many large U.S. businesses.
Drawing upon the existing literature, Duncan & Herrera (2014) investigated the relationship between the Diversity dimensions of individualism, collectivism, and gender egalitarianism - and the four LMX dimensions of Contribution, Loyalty, Affect, and Professional Respect. In this study of 300 working adults, [they] found that there was a significant positive relationship between Diversity and the Multidimensional Measure of Leader-Member Exchange. Further regression analysis indicated that the Diversity dimension, Collectivism, was the driving factor of the relationship. This outcome indicated that Collectivism was a strong predictor of how positively participants rated their attitudes toward their immediate supervisor and perceptions of leadership. Furthermore, it strengthens the argument that organizations must be prepared to evaluate their policies with regard to diversity in the organization, particularly with respect to Collectivism. (abs)
Comparison of the Early Contingency Models of Leadership
Leader Characteristic Follower Characteristic Task Other Factors Effectiveness Criteria
Fiedler’s Model LPC based on motivation; not changeable Group cohesion Task structure Position power Group performance
Normative Decision Model Decision-making style; can be changed Group cohesion Available information Agreement with goals Time Quality of the decision
Path-Goal Theory Leader behavior; can be changed Individual follower need to grow Clarity and routineness of task Follower satisfaction and motivation
Substitutes Leader behavior; can be changed Group cohesion Clarity of task; availability of information Organization culture, structure, and processes Need for leader
LMX Quality of relationship with follower
Lecture and Research Update Bibliography
Duncan, P. and Herrera, R. (Feb 2014). The Relationship Between Diversity and the Multidimensional Measure of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX-MDM). Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 15.1, 11-24.
Kriger, M. and Zhovtobryukh, Y. (2013). Rethinking Strategic Leadership: Stars, Clans, Teams and Networks. Journal of Strategy and Management, 6.4, 411-432.
Nahavandi, A. (2015). The Art and Science of Leadership (7th ed). Pearson.
• Leadership effectiveness is a function of the match or fit between leader’s style and the leadership situation
• The leader’s style has a traitlike quality and cannot be changed from one situation to another
• The leader must change the situation to fit his or her style
• The leader’s style
– Task or relationship motivation measured by the LPC scale
• Situational control
– Leader-member relations
– Task structure
Position power