Introduction
Fiedler’s contingency model gives organizations a way to measure the potential effectiveness of a group’s performance based on the leadership style and the situation of the group. The model can help management decide who is a more suitable leader for either group types: task-motivated or relationship-motivated. The model gives organizations a way to quickly identify the best potential leaders for a particular group thereby making the goal of the groups potentially more easily attainable with strategic resource application. Using the model you can access whether you or others are stronger in task-oriented or relationship-oriented situations. However, Fiedler’s model is not flexible and not applicable to all work situations. Work situations that rely on structure, such as the military and law enforcement, may use Fiedler’s Contingency Leadership Model during emergencies where quick decisions need to be made and leadership strengths are crucial during emergency management situations such as Hurricane Katrina.
Initial Post Instructions
Fiedler’s Contingency Model has had many applications in the real world and has contributed to the development of other contingency theories; however, it has not gone uncontested.
Review the criticisms discussed in the book, as well as the following critique written by leadership-central.com
“The vagueness of the parameters in the LPC scale makes them open to interpretation and they are context-free. For example, “supportive” could mean anything. Giving criticism can be supportive, but in whose eyes? A leader who is egotistical may not see any criticism as supportive. As with any surveys, one must ask how dynamic are they? Personalities and judgments of them change over time and with circumstances. Survey research is notoriously inaccurate, as Gabriel Almond found four decades ago, and modern survey techniques are very sophisticated, albeit fraught with problems. The proof of a theory is its ability to predict, but if the terms are vague enough, just about any prediction will do. As somewhat of a sidebar, controversies about “prophets” such as Nostradamus abound, but the fact is that his predictions were so general that many could be deemed accurate. Horoscopes are beset with the same difficulties, as the traits are so general that just about anyone would qualify as having those about any day and in the right circumstances – which also are usually described in vague terms.”
Do you agree with these criticisms? Why or why not?
Are there any other criticisms you can offer to this model?