Category: Dissertation examples,
Words: 1006 | Published: 01.23.20 | Views: 447 | Download now


Leadership has different meanings to various creators. Management could be understood to be influence, that is certainly, the art of process of influencing people so that they can strive willingly and with excitement toward the achievement of group desired goals (Bass, 1981). Though their approach to leadership theory is primarily one of inspecting leadership style, Fred Electronic.

Fiedler wonderful associates at the University of Illinois possess suggested a contingency theory of command (Fiedler, 1967).

The theory retains that people turn into leaders not only because of the advantages of their individuality but also because of several situational elements and the interactions between frontrunners and group members. On the basis of his studies, Fiedler described three important dimensions with the leadership condition that support determine what design of leadership will be most effective (Miner, 1982):

Placement power may be the degree to which the power of a position, as distinguished from other options for power, including personality or perhaps expertise, allows a leader to get group members to comply with guidelines, in the case of managers, this is the power arising from organizational authority. Since Fiedler highlights, a leader with clear and considerable situation power can acquire good followership more easily than one with out such electricity (Bowers, 1975).

With the dimensions of Process structure, Fiedler had in mind the extent that tasks could be clearly said and people held accountable for them. If perhaps tasks will be clear (rather than hazy and unstructured), the quality of performance can be more easily controlled and group associates can be organised more certainly responsible for overall performance. Fiedler viewed the dimensions of Leader-member relations as the most important via a leader’s point of view, since position power and activity structure might be largely under the control of an enterprise. It needs to do with all the extent to which group associates like, trust, and are willing to follow a head (Yuki, 1981).

To approach his analyze, Fiedler established two major styles of command. One of these is definitely primarily task-oriented, that is, the leader gains satisfaction from finding tasks performed. The other is focused primarily toward achieving great interpersonal relations and attaining a position of personal prominence. Favorableness of circumstance was identified by Fiedler as their education to which the situation enables a leader to exert affect over a group.

To measure leadership variations and identify whether a innovator is chiefly task-oriented, Fiedler used an unusual testing technique (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). He structured his conclusions on two sources: (1) scores around the least recommended coworker (LPC) scale ” these are evaluations made by persons in a group as to individuals with whom they can least like to work, and (2) ratings on the assumed similarity between opposites (ASO) scale, rankings based on the amount to which leaders see group members as being like themselves, on the presumption that people will like best, and work best with, those who are viewed as most like themselves.

Today the LPC scale is most commonly used in study. In developing this scale, Fiedler asked respondents to recognize the traits of a person with whom they can work least well (Fiedler, 1967).

Leadership performance will depend on as much around the organization as it depends on the leader’s own features. Except most likely for the unusual case, it is not really meaningful to speak of an successful leader or an unproductive leader, we are able to only talk about a leader who tends to be successful in one circumstance and inadequate in another. If we wish to boost organizational and group success we must learn not only how to train commanders more effectively although also how to construct an organizational environment where the leader is able to do well (Indvik, 1986).

In a highly organized situation, just like in the military during a battle, where the head has strong position electrical power and great relations with members, we have a favorable condition in which job orientation is quite appropriate. The other extreme, an undesirable situation with moderately poor relations, a great unstructured job, and weak position electric power, also advises task orientation by the leader, who may reduce anxiousness or double entendre that could be produced by the loosely structured circumstance. Between the two extremes, the suggested way emphasizes cooperation and good relations with people.

To conclude, command is the art or technique of influencing persons so that they contribute willingly and enthusiastically toward group goals. Leadership needs followership. The approach to command, built around the assumption that leaders would be the product of given circumstances, focuses on study regarding situations.

Fiedler’s contingency approach takes into account the position power of the leader, the composition of the job, and the relationships between the innovator and group members. This would make the enthusiasts to just like, trust and follow the head. The conclusion is that there is no one ideal leadership style and that managers can be successful if put in appropriate scenarios.


Bass, Barnard Meters. 1981. Stodgill’s Handbook of Leadership: A survey of theory and research, Rev. ed, New york city: The Totally free Press.

Bowers, David G. 1975. “Hierarchy, Function plus the Generalizability of Leadership Practices,  in James G. Hunt and Lars T. Larson (eds. ), Command Frontiers (Kent, Ohio: Kent State College or university Press, 1975), pp. 167-180.

Fiedler, Wendy E. 1967. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Organization, 1967).

Indvik, Julie. 1986. “Path Goal Theory of Leadership: A Meta-Analysis,  in David A. Pearce II and Richard B. Robinson, Junior. (eds. ), Academy of Management Best Papers-Proceedings, Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Senior high of Administration, Chicago (Aug. 13-16, 1986), pp. 189-192.

Kirkpatrick, Shelley A. & Locke, Edwin A. 1991. “Leadership: Carry out Traits Subject?  School of Supervision Executive (May 1991), pp. 48-60.

Miner, John N. 1982. Theories of Organizational Structure and Process, Hinsdale, Ill.: The Dryden Press, Chap. 2 .

Yuki, Gary A. 1981. Management in Firm, (Englewood Cliffs, N. ]: Prentice-Hall, buck. 4.

< Prev post Next post >