The Fiedler Contingency Theory is an effective tool for assessing whether or not a leader is in charge of the right person or group of people. It suggests that there are situational variables (leader-member relations, task structure, and position power). When considering these three variables, it becomes easier to match a leader with the right kind of members in order to lead effectively (Northouse, 2013, p. 123)
I think this style of leadership theory is a great one because it allows leaders to do their jobs in a more efficient way. It also affords members the luxury of being lead by the kind of leader they would prefer to work under. It makes sense to me that productivity and morale in the work place would be greater and there would be a higher rate of overall job satisfaction if we all worked for leaders we got along with, felt supported by and were motivated by.
When considering the three variables mentioned above, I think it’s important to pair leaders and members who respond to each others styles of interaction. For instance, pairing a leader who leads in a dictatorial way and is more task oriented than relationship oriented, with a relationship oriented member is going to result in an unhappy member and the leader may even feel a sense of frustration as well because they probably won’t be very effective in getting the member to do what they want to do. Feeling ineffective can lead to frustration and can reflect negatively, adding to an already bad situation.
As for the task-structure component of the leadership variable, this has to do with the “degree to which the requirements of a task are clear and spelled out” (Northouse, p. 124). I would think a dictatorial leader would have no problem with this, however if the follower needs more of a relationship-oriented approach and there is no exchange or give and take when talking about what needs to be done, the member may feel too controlled and dislike the leader. Again, a bad outcome and this sets up a negatively charged environment for both the leader and the member.
Finally, the power position variable of the contingency theory has to do with “the amount of authority a leader has to reward or punish followers” (Northouse, p. 125). One would hope that just because a leader has this type of authority, they would not abuse it, but I’m sure we’ve all been managed by someone in our lifetime that has. However, in the right circumstance if led by a leader who you do relate well to, a leader with a high level of power position can be a good thing come time for advancement or pay raise! The power position has more to do with the level of authority a leader has, than with the way in which they use their authority.
In conclusion, I think the Fiedler’s contingency theory, makes a lot of sense and I lean towards that being a really logical way to assess the relationship between a leader and their followers. Why wouldn’t the two rather be placed in a situation that would only benefit both of them?
References:
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (6th edition). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication.