Contingency Theory Case Study 6.1
Utilizing the case study in our textbook I feel will help understand the Contingency Theory a little easier.
Tamara Popovich’s was elected president over a council in which she had no control. The council is tasked with instituting a new policy that will cause students to pay a computer fee. The question that is before me is how is she going to implement this policy with a council that she has no way of rewarding or punishing as a way of motivating the council. Popovich is a high Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) measure at a score of 98, which according to our text, she is motivated by relationships.
There are three factors to the Contingency Model; Leader-Member Relations. Task Structure and Positional Power. The Leader-Member Relation factor is defined as “the group atmosphere and the degree of confidence, loyalty, and attraction that followers have for their leader”, the case indicates that the council members like her; therefore she is “Good”. The second factor Task Structure is defined as “the requirements of the task being clear and spelled out”, our case states that this is the first time students will have to pay a fee, and the task is clear (students paying a fee) however there is no precedence. As a result, I feel that there is Low Structure. The last factor is Positional Factor, which is defined as “the amount of authority the leader has to reward or punish the followers”, the case states that she has no power to reward or punish the council, therefore she has weak power. I would rate Popovich under the Leader-Member relations a 1, under Task Structure I would rate it at a 5 and lastly I would rate Positional Power as a 8. (Northouse, 2013, pp 124-125)
Based on Popovich’s relationship motivation, I think she scored herself high on the aspects of the LPC Questionnaire, that relate to relationships such as pleasant, friendly, supporting, open, considerate, agreeable, and kind. Conversely, she scored herself low in the areas that detract from relationships such as rejecting, tense, distant, cold, boring, quarrelsome, gloomy, backbiting, and untrustworthy, nasty and insincere. I believe that she will use this strength to further build the trust with the council and motivate them to be successful in the implementation of the new student computer fee policy. One can assume that the collective experience of the council will facilitate the successful implementation and as long as Popovich seeks out each council member strengths and cultivates them, she will undoubtedly be successful, well as long as the students do not rise up in arms.
Path Goal Theory Case Study 7.1
In our case study we find that Art, Bob, and Carol have three very different circumstances in which they apply different leadership styles. Art, although “involved in day to day operations” and “walks though the plant” (Northouse, 2013, p. 149). He has a team that has very monotonous tasks to accomplish. Team members often complain about how boring their jobs are. Although there are very few negative comments made about Art’s leadership style the employees feel that he does not understand their plight. Art’s leadership style can be defined under the Path-Goal theory as Directive. 
This is evidenced by how he reminds the team of the correct procedures and always having some directions and reminders in spite of the fact that the teams tasks are very monotonous are require little to no guidance. Because of Art’s Directive leadership style, his team is not motivated.
Bob is very people oriented. His team consider him to be genuinely caring. He is always posting about his teams birthdays and accomplishments. Camaraderie is very important to Bob as demonstrated by sponsoring the company’s baseball team and inviting his team to his home for social events. Bob’s team is responsible for a very complex computer system. In spite of Bob’s supportive leadership style there is a lot of absenteeism and his team has complained to Bob and upper management about the complex nature of their job. Although Bob has demonstrated a Supportive leadership style, this is not what his employees need and as a result his team is failing to meet organizational goals. His team is not motivated which is resulting in high absenteeism and turnover.
Carol leads a very motivated team. She ensures that each member of her team is able to speak openly to her about issues. When there are problems on the production line she wants to be informed so she can help resolve it. She regularly coaches her employees that lack the ability to complete a task, for those employees that lack self-confidence she reassures them. She is not only interested in each employee’s personal goals she also ensures they are aware of the organizations goals and rewards her team for accomplishing those goals. Carol’s leadership style is Achievement-Oriented. Through her actions, she not only focus on organizational goals but also encourages a holistic employee view that results in the employees’ commitment to organizational goals. This holistic approached is evidenced by ones employees comment, “an interesting mixture of part parent, part manufacturing expert” (Northouse, 2013 p. 150). Although the case study does not indicate what type of tasks are assigned to her team. It appears that she is extremely effective in her Achievement-Oriented leadership style because organization goals are achieved, the team appears to be highly motivated, and the senior management at Brako are pleased.
REFRENCES
Northouse, P. (2013). Contingency Theory & Path-Goal Theory. In Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed., pp. 123-160, ). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Pennsylvania State World Campus (n.d.). Module 6 Contingency and Path-Goal Theory Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1486679/modules/items/15963835