After Team A reviewed and discussed Fiedler’s Contingency Model, we agreed that the roles and responsibilities of task- motivated and relationship motivated leaders seem very similar. This theory is based on the idea that leaders cannot change their style of leadership. The Vroom Decision-making Model of Leadership focuses upon decision making as how successful leadership emerges and progresses. This is accomplished by a flowchart-style decision making procedure that arrives at a style of decision-making. These styles are autocratic, consultative, and group. The theory states that there can be many styles of leadership and no one type fits all situations, thus making this a Contingency Theory. Some pro sides:
The Vroom Decision-making Model of Leadership is highly flexible with respect to the choices a leader can make in effecting decisions. The range is from highly dictatorial to democratic. The method has a mechanical procedure to arrive at a decision making process. The idea of a procedure like this can be seen as “objective”, which the results were not arrived at by a non-specific method. The con sides:
It is questionable whether this model can be used in large groups. The decision procedure may be too mechanical and note take into account subtleties in decision making, such as changing emotions and, for that matter change, in general. The questions may not be precise enough and sufficiently contextual, as in “Is the quality of the decision important?” “Important to whom or what and in what time frame” are the questions. Fiedler’s contingency theory is a qualification or type of contingency theory. Contingency theories in general state that the effectiveness of leadership depends upon the situation, and there are numerous factors, such as the nature of the task, leader’s personality, and make-up of the group being led. Fiedler created the least preferred co-worker (LPC) scale, where a leader is asked what traits can be ascribed to the co-worker that the leader likes the least. The pro sides:
The theory is extremely well researched, given the stated parameters. For a “thumb-in-the-wind” approach to identifying leaders, Fiedler’s contingency theory can assist enormously: Leaders with good personal relations are matched to a poorly structured task environment. The con sides:
LPC scale is subjective, and characteristics are relative in contexts. Even according to Fiedler, the LPC score is valid only for groups that are closely supervised and does not apply to “open ones” such as teams. It is questionable whether Fiedler’s contingency theory is valid in all situations, such as when neither the task is well defined and no choice of leaders is to be had, except ones with bad personalities Conclusion
Every leader has their own style and way of leading and managing their workers. I think there is a certain style for each manager, some things may be tweaked, but for the most part they are set in their ways.