Fiedler Contingency Theory vs House-Path Goal Theory Term Paper

Fiedler Contingency Theory vs House-Path Goal Theory - Term Paper Example It concludes that none of the theories can be applied single handedly hence, they need to be correlated. Key words: contingency theory, goal path theory, leadership, and management. Fiedler Contingency Theory vs House-Path Goal Theory Introduction Leadership is increasingly becoming an interesting subject of study with various theories emerging to explain why some leaders are more effective than others are. Such theories open up our minds to the various leadership approaches and enrich our leadership skills. The theories include trait theories, power and influence theories, behavioral theories, contingency theories, and path theories. This essay will focus on Fiedler’s Contingency and House’s Path Theory as models of analyzing leadership (Lussier & Achua, 2010). Fiedler’s contingency theory and its applicability Fiedler’s contingency theory is the brainchild of Fred Fiedler a scientist who majored in leadership and personality. The model posits that there is no standard style of leadership instead; the leadership styles adopted depend on the situation and circumstances. As such, the leadership style depends on the situations favorable. The first step in the model is identifying the leadership style. Fiedler holds that leadership styles are fixed and can be measured through a model he refers to as the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale. The scale requires one to consider the person they enjoy working with the most and rate them for each factor then give them a score. The factors include friendliness, cooperation, pleasance, sincerity, loyalty, kindness, cheerfulness, openness, supportiveness, calmness, and acceptance (Nohria & Khurana, 2010). If the person scores high then you are a relationship-oriented leader. If the score is low then you are a task-oriented leader. This implies that task oriented leaders have more negative LPCs. Fiedler also refers to them as low-LPC leaders (Lussier & Achua, 2010). He explains that such leaders are effective in task completion and quick in organizing groups to accomplish a particular task. Relationship building is not their priority. On the other hand, the relationship-oriented leaders have LPCs that are more positive. They are also known as high-LPC leaders. They focus on personal connections and are effective in avoiding managerial conflict. They can also make complex decisions (Sadler, 2003). The next step to one’s type of leadership is through situational favorableness. Fiedler relates this to three factors. First is the leader-member relations, which is the trust, and confidence the team has in their leader. A leader that is trusted is in a more favorable situation than one who is not. Then there is the task structure, which is the clarity or vagueness of the task being performed. Unstructured tasks put the team and their leader in an unfavorable situation. The last is the leader’s position of power, the more power a leader has the more favorable the sit uation. Application Fiedler’s theory main premise is that a leader in a strict and task-oriented environment has different qualities from one in an open-minded environment. The theory helps to improve leader-member relationships by helping both the leaders and the group members to understand group problems and help solve them. It also allows for consultation and feedback within an organization. The model prepares leaders and other group members to work with difficult individuals (Nohria & Khurana,