After about eight months of flightline expediting, I was finally comfortable in the driver’s seat. This was a new position for me coming out of my four-year duty as an instructor. I loved being an instructor at my field training detachment. I loved the impact of the job and I mostly enjoyed the autonomy of keeping my programs up to date. So, when my four-year tour ended, I was nervous to see how my experiences would lead me into my new role as an expediter. It took me a while but I finally developed a rhythm, after about eight months, that I was comfortable with and no longer dreaded heading to work during my one-hour commute. I built a rapport with my subordinates and peers and developed a leadership style that I was proud of and effective enough for me to constantly receive praise from them as well. I was so comfortable of course, that my supervision thought it would be a good idea to position me into another job. At about 12 months, my supervision moved me into the Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC) of the Debrief Section. In short, I was now the boss of a five personnel team in charge of debriefing pilots. My life as an expediter was short lived but, I want to discuss how my leadership style suited me for the position as the NCOIC of Debrief.
In the Northouse (2007) text, he describes contingency theory as, “A leader-match theory (fiedler & Cherners, 1974), which means it tris to match lenders to appropriate situations” (p. 113). I believe that this theory best suits my scenario because I was chosen to replace a leader whose leadership style failed in the NCOIC position. According to contingency theory, the success of a leader is contingent on that leader’s style and matching it to the appropriate situation. With this, there are two important factors when considering the success a leader will have under contingent theory analysis and that is: leadership style and situational variables. There are two styles of leadership: task oriented and relationship motivated. Task oriented leaders are highly focused on task completion and do not focus on follower/subordinate relationship. Relationship motivated leaders are just the opposite, focus highly on the relations with their followers and are not as motivated on task completion. Each leadership style will have success in specific scenarios as described with Fiedler’s (as cited in Northouse, 2007, p. 115) Contingency Model. In my specific case, the previous NCOIC was a leader who was highly relationship motivated. This leader fell behind on several tasks delegated by his supervisors and rarely upkept on programs that relied on his supervision. With my prior experience as an instructor and having managed several programs successfully during this time, my supervision knew that I may have some success into the position of the NCOIC. Despite being task oriented, according to contingency theory, I must be placed into the appropriate situation to be successful which is classified into three categories: leader-member relations, task structure, and position power.
The first situational variable, leader-member relations, Northouse (2007) explains, “consists of the group atmosphere and the degree of confidence, loyalty and attraction that follower feel for their leader” (p.114). While I cannot speak for my subordinates, I would like to say that I built a good leader-member relationship off that bat. I did so by being a follower before a leader. Being brand new to Debrief, I had no idea how to operate the section. The first thing I asked the group was, “What can I do to make your jobs more efficient?” They responded with getting rid of managing a set of files that we were not in charge of. I immediately searched for the responsible section and discussed how we could get the files back to them. After executing this request almost immediately, my new subordinates praised my actions and exclaimed that I had already done more for them than the previous NCOIC. The second situational variable, task structure, is examined by observing the daily tasks of debrief. These tasks are very structured and have very little ambiguity within them. Every day the same forms and systems are used within debrief and the systems are highly structured. The last situational variable is position power. As the NCOIC of the section I was everyone’s boss. Though I do not possess the power to hire and fire my subordinates, I had the power to control one of the most valuable assets everyone possessed, time. I would exercise this power by creating the schedule and providing ‘cut backs’ when our work load did not require the amount of personnel assigned to shift. Using these three variables, leader-member relations, task structure, and position power, I could assess whether I would be successful based on my leadership style with Fiedler’s contingency model.
Determining the appropriate leadership style for my scenario using Fiedler’s contingency model is quite simple. Assessing my leader-member relations, I would proclaim that it is on a good level. Because there is little room for ambiguity for debrief tasks, the task structure is high. And finally, I would proclaim again that though I do not have the positional power to fire my subordinates, I do possess the power to control their time spent at work and because of this I would say that my positional power is strong. With this information according to Fiedler’s contingency model, a leader with a low/middle LPC or high task motivated leadership style would be most successful in this situation. With four months of NCOIC leadership under my belt, I would say that I have successfully managed to bring multiple programs back up to speed as well as successfully build a healthy rapport with my subordinates.
Reference
Northouse, Peter G. Leadership. SAGE Publications, Inc. (US), 2016. [MBS Direct].