Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Fiedler’s Contingency Model Discussion
The application of the Fiedler’s Contingency Model provided the group with a model of exploring our personal traits and leadership styles. However, the situational nature of the leadership environment makes the description of the type of leadership a dynamic phenomenon to study. In the assessment done by the group, the members had different scores in various categories that demonstrated our diversity in terms of orientation of leadership styles under the Fiedler’s Contingency Model. According to Nahavandi (2014), a leader with a high LPC means that he and the group work well in situations that are moderately controlled. The results of the discussion and the evaluation showed that I did match with the group as predicted by the Fiedler’s Contingency Model.
After the assessment, I realized that my group performs best with moderate situational control. This is because I established that I have a high LPC, which indicates a match with the situation described by the Fiedler’s Contingency Model. This means that I am a leader with a high regard for human relations in the group. This confirms my traits as a person who is relationship oriented other than task oriented. In many of the responses, I found myself and the rest of the group in a more pleasant and more efficient manner. This explains the tendency to positively rate my least preferred coworkers as argued by the Fiedler’s Contingency Model (Nahavandi, 2014). The reason for being “in match” with the group is also because of my preference of a leadership style that impacts on the behavior of people by influencing them rather than focusing on task execution.
The extent of matching my effectiveness as illustrated by the self-rating assessment was high as per the Fiedler’s Contingency Model. This is because I was effective as a leader and the group was effective in fulfilling the tasks that we set to undertake. Therefore, the overall performance of the group was high and the effectiveness of the group was good. This confirms the argument that leadership of an organization or a group determines the effectiveness of the unit. According to Nahavandi (2014), the leader is responsible for setting the pace and the performance levels of a group by establishing goals that influence the group to work towards achieving them. However the match may be limited by the changes in the situation that necessitates the adoption of different leadership styles.
The results of the assessments showed variations among the group members. In the self rating score, the score was 8, showing a high regard for the colleagues. In the leader-member relations assessment, the score was 12, showing a good relationship between the members of the group with the leader. In terms of power positions assessment, the score was 5, which illustrates my capacity to lead the group as confirmed by the task structure assessment score. This leads to a moderate control in the situation control score.
In general, the Fiedler’s Contingency Model shows the relationship between the leader’s effectiveness with the situational contingency. This relationship is as a consequence of the situational favorableness that is represented by the situational control and the leadership style. To explore the Fiedler’s Contingency Model, our group undertook the assessment that indicated our match to the argument by the Fiedler. The results matched with Fiedler’s model that leaders with high LPC perform better with their groups in situations of moderate control. This illustrates our leadership orientation and level of effectiveness of our leadership abilities and styles.
Reference
Nahavandi, A. (2014). The Art and Science of Leadership, Seventh Edition. Upper Saddle River,
New York: Pearson Prentice Hall