The evolving workplace today needs more hybrids than earlier generations. Hybrids are those who are able to function and accomplish more than one task. Millennials refer to them as multi-hyphenated, something that has become common in the generation.
Being flexible and adaptable are now valued traits, especially in an evolving society. However, this does not mean that specializing in something no longer has any value. In Fiedler’s contingency model, we find something of a compromise–leaders are not restricted to specific leading situations but they also are not required to adapt too much to the situation. In other words, it’s the middle ground equation. Meeting the situation halfway means maximizing a leader’s potential by putting them in the best place possible.
Similar to situational approach, the theory puts importance on two pathways, task-oriented and relationship-driven employees. Another aspect of the theory is situational favorableness. Three elements measure this. The first is leader-member relations, which refers to the trust and confidence that the team has in the leader and vice versa. The more trust there is in the group, the more likely the leader can influence and be favored in the situation.
The next is task structure. Every group has particular tasks that need to be accomplished. As the leader, one has to be knowledgeable of the tasks that the group needs to accomplish. When the leader is very structured and specific in relation to the tasks at hand, the team tends to have more faith in the leader. On the contrary, unstructured teams led by a leader who has little knowledge of the tasks can lead to a very unfavorable situation.
Finally, leader’s position power dictates the kind of power that a leader has in directing the group. When a leader is able to dole out apt punishment and reward for specific tasks, this puts the situation more in his favor.
The beauty of Fiedler’s contingency theory is that the leader does not have to become a jack of all trades when as a leader. The theory matches leaders with the situation where they will surely be able to shine. In the real world, not everyone can be a man or woman of talent. And even the most talented CEO or chairman needs to understand the importance of delegating where one can shine best.
What is great about this contingency model is that it takes into consideration leaders’ tendency to become consistent with their behaviors. Shifting roles can become difficult to maintain in the long run, which is why it is also good to know where one specializes in.
I remember working with a boss who would micromanage almost everything. Granted, it was a start-up agency, and she was both creative director and half the CEO (they were a couple owning the business). I only stayed there for two months because of two things: scheduling and micromanagement.
Agencies are notorious for long hours every day, but that was the first that I’ve encountered that needed to stay every single night until 11 p.m. even when there were no pitches or major projects. This was because she would tend to check every person’s work. It did not matter if they were an artist, a copywriter, or an account executive. She would check each deliverable that will be passed to the client. She acted like the team leader of everyone in the company.
Offhand, this seemed like an admirable trait. The small size of the company really required more hands-on work. However, when you’re there, it feels like an intensely-executed micromanagement set-up. What happens is that people have to fall in line to have their works checked. And when she would give feedback in things like artwork or copy, which was not really her specialization, it would become a back-and-forth process that lengthens the work involved.
During my first two weeks, I never went home on the dot and the latest I’ve stayed was midnight. I even saw one officemate the next morning wearing the same clothes. And I was pretty sure we did not have a major campaign during that week. This made me feel that she was stretching herself to thin even in situations where she was not the best person to handle things. Because of that, it really felt as if everyone in the company suffered. She was a good boss as far as business development and client relations was concerned. But when it comes to creatives, it would have worked better if she had other people who specialized in that position.
This is why I think Fiedler’s contingency theory has an advantage. It brings to light the need for leaders to recognize their weakness and other people’s strengths. While flexible leaders are a good thing to have, allocating who can work best in what setting is also a great strategy especially for growing leaders under your wing.
Reference:
Verkerk, P. (1990). Fiedler’s contingency model of leadership effectiveness: Background and recent developments. (OCTO-report, Vol. 9002). Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology.
mdh5581 says
Really glad that you wrote about fielders contingency model. I can see the benefits of it and definitely agree with the idea that it’s model of leadership makes it important to hold the leaders themselves accountable and understand that they themselves are not perfect. A leader that bites off more than they can chew often does not end well. Your boss seems like a perfect example of that.
I can see fielders contingency model and how it parallels with the topic I wrote about which was leadership styles. Northouse writes that “The delegative leader lessens involvement in planning, control of details, and goal clarification.” (Northouse, 2016 pg 95). This seems very much like the basis off fielders contingency model. You write that “The beauty of Fiedler’s contingency theory is that the leader does not have to become a jack of all trades.”, the great thing about this and the delegative leadership style in figure 5.1 is that it gives the followers the freedom to explore and problem solve on their own without having the guidance of someone with more knowledge in the field. This gives the potential for the followers to find their own way to the goal which can possibly be more efficient than what the leader themselves had thought.
While the fielders contigency model and the delegative leadership style can bring unexpected benefits, it is important that this leadership style is done with the right group of people who are competent enough to get the job done.
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. 7th Edition. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.
mdh5581 says
Really glad that you wrote about fielders contingency model. I can see the benefits of it and definitely agree with the idea that it’s model of leadership makes it important to hold the leaders themselves accountable and understand that they themselves are not perfect. A leader that bites off more than they can chew often does not end well. Your boss seems like a perfect example of that.
I can see fielders contingency model and how it parallels with the topic I wrote about which was leadership styles. Northouse writes that “The delegative leader lessens involvement in planning, control of details, and goal clarification.” (Northouse, 2016 pg 95). This seems very much like the basis off fielders contingency model. You write that “The beauty of Fiedler’s contingency theory is that the leader does not have to become a jack of all trades.”, the great thing about this and the delegative leadership style in figure 5.1 is that it gives the followers the freedom to explore and problem solve on their own without having the guidance of someone with more knowledge in the field. This gives the potential for the followers to find their own way to the goal which can possibly be more efficient than what the leader themselves had thought.
While the fielders contigency model and the delegative leadership style can bring unexpected benefits, it is important that this leadership style is done with the right group of people who are competent enough to get the job done.
aul280 says
Your boss that you are referencing here with her micromanagement reminds me of a boss I recently had and her micromanaging did nothing but hurt her in my opinion. She didn’t delegate and that meant putting all of that on herself and I watched her for two years have panic attacks because things would not get done, constantly sick, she was in a car accident and hardly ever took time for herself. I agree with you that a hands-on manager is an admirable trait but if tasks are not delegated properly and micromanaging or burn outcomes into play I don’t believe that leader can be successful. I do agree with Fiedler’s contingency model of leadership has the advantage because it is important for leaders to recognize their weaknesses. No one is perfect, even a successful leader.