BUMGT6928 Developing Leader in Global Context Essay 3 Sample
Assignment Brief
Purpose of the task:
The purpose of this task is to engage students in critical thinking and analysis within the leadership arena. Students will select from a range of leadership topics and critically evaluate and analyse the relevant academic and non – academic literature .
Task: Students are expected to write a 3000-word ( +/- 10%) essay on the following essay topic.
In Fiedler’s contingency theory, the most important dimension of the situation for determining situational control is leader-member relations? Discuss
Solution
Topic- “In Fiedler’s contingency theory, the most important dimension of the situation for determining situational control is leader-member relations? Discuss”
Introduction
“Fiedler's contingency theory of leadership” is one of the most well-known and established leadership models that emphasise the importance of the situation in determining the effectiveness of leadership. Developed by Fred Fiedler in the 1960s, the theory provides a framework for understanding how “leaders' ability” to lead is contingent upon various “situational factors” (Shala, Prebreza and Ramosaj, 2021). In contrast to most other theories of leadership, which would argue that one’s effectiveness is due to an inherent quality that characterises the leader, Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership argues that one’s effectiveness is a matter of how compatible one’s style is with the situation. Fiedler’s theory would argue that leaders have two main styles, namely “task-oriented” and “relationship-oriented”, and attempts to identify which style works best under different situations.
The theory proposes three situational variables that define the context in which leadership occurs: “Leader-member relations”, “task structure”, and the “leader's position power”. Fiedler suggests that the most important of these conditions to situational control is “leader-member” relations: the extent to which followers trust, respect and are confident in their leader. Good “leader-member” relations lead to a situation where it is for university assignment help more likely that a leader will succeed at influencing the group. Bad “leader-member” relations can lead to a situation where a leader is less likely to direct his or her group.
This analysis seeks to critically examine Fiedler’s claim that “leader-member” relations is the most important situational factor in determining situational control. The analysis will explore Fiedler’s contingency theory in detail, consider how “leader-member” relations compare with other situational factors, assess the validity of this claim by evaluating relevant academic and non-academic literature, and discuss its implications for leadership in various contexts.
Analysis
Understanding “Fiedler's Contingency Theory”
At its core, Fiedler’s contingency theory posits that no single style of leadership is effective in all conditions. Rather, the fit between particular contexts and a leader’s style lies at the heart of success or failure. Fiedler saw leaders as encompassing either a predominantly task-oriented style or a predominantly “relationship-oriented” style (Méndez, 2020). Effective task-oriented leaders make sure that goals are attained and assigned tasks are completed. Relationship-oriented leaders, on the other hand, are more concerned with developing commitment and co-operation between people and prioritise the interpersonal relationship with the follower over the task at hand.
The theory measures the leader’s orientation using a tool called the Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) scale, where leaders are asked to describe the co-worker with whom they least enjoyed working (Njoku and Guillermo, 2023). “High-LPC” scores indicate that the leader is more relationship-oriented, while “low-LPC” scores suggest a task-oriented style. Once the leadership style is established, Fiedler contends that the leader's effectiveness is contingent upon three key situational factors that determine the leader's situational control. “Leader-member relations” is the degree of belief, respect, and trust between the leader and the group members (Reams, 2023). “Task Structure” is the extent to which the tasks being performed by the group are clear, structured, and also unambiguous. “Position Power” is the degree of authority the leader has to direct the group, reward/punish members, and influence their own behaviour.
Fiedler argues that these three dimensions can be combined in multiple configurations to produce eight different leadership situations varying from highly favourable (where the scores are highest on all dimensions) to highly unfavourable (where the scores are lowest on all dimensions). Task-driven leaders are most effective in either highly favourable or highly unfavourable environments, while relationship-driven leaders are effective in moderately favourable environments.
Fiedler's theory thus suggests that matching the leader's style to the situation is crucial for leadership effectiveness (Rodi? and Mari?, 2021). Rather it emphasises that “leader-member” relations are the most important determinant of situational control. This leads to the central question that why are “leader-member” relations seen as the most critical variable in determining the effectiveness of leadership.
“Leader-member” Relations as the Most Important Factor
“Leader-member” relations are defined as the quality of the interpersonal relationship between the leader and the group members. According to Fiedler, this dimension of leadership is the most significant factor in determining situational control because it directly affects the leader's ability to influence and motivate followers (Rodi? and Mari?, 2021). Good “leader-member” relations mean that followers trust and respect the leader, making them more willing to follow the leader's guidance. On the contrary, poor relations create an environment of distrust and lack of cooperation, making it harder for the leader to lead effectively.
The rationale behind the primacy of “leader-member” relations in Fiedler’s model is grounded in the psychology of group dynamics and the role that trust plays in effective leadership. Under such positive “leader-member” relations, the leader will gain more support from group members in order to implement decisions and maintain cohesion of the group. This kind of support, in turn, is essential for effective leadership. This is because leadership means exerting influence over people so that they can achieve a shared goal. So when a task is structured well and the leader exerts high authority, a leader without support from followers may not be able to secure success. Tremblay et al., (2021) underscore the relevance of “leader-member” relations in leadership effectiveness. For example, a wealth of research has established that leaders who develop strong and trusting only create high levels of dedication and investment among followers but also positive outcomes in terms of performance. Having good relations with leaders is also associated with positive functioning in organisations. Employees who have good “leader-member” relations are more satisfied with their jobs, tend to be more loyal to their organisation and more productive.
However, while “leader-member” relations play a critical role in determining situational control, it is essential to evaluate how this factor compares with the other two dimensions in Fiedler’s contingency model task structure and position power. This leads us to an analysis of these other factors and their relative importance in determining leadership effectiveness.
Task Structure and Its Influence on Leadership
Task structure refers to the degree to which the tasks being performed by the group are clear and well-defined. In highly structured tasks, there is little ambiguity about what needs to be done and how it should be accomplished. On the other hand, unstructured tasks are ambiguous, requiring more discretion, creativity, and decision-making from both leaders and followers. According to Fiedler, task structure is the second important situational factor after “leader-member” relations, as it determines the extent to which the leader has control over the situation (Adeoye, 2021).
In structured tasks, the leader’s role is more straightforward, as there is little room for misinterpretation or confusion. The clarity of the task reduces the need for constant direction and supervision, allowing the leader to focus on other aspects of leadership, such as motivation and team dynamics. Task-oriented leaders tend to perform well in these situations because their primary focus is on getting the job done efficiently (Asana, 2024). In contrast, “relationship-oriented” leaders may struggle in highly structured situations, as their emphasis on interpersonal relationships may be less relevant to task completion.
However, when tasks are unstructured, the leader must take a more active role in providing guidance, making decisions, and solving problems. In such situations, “relationship-oriented” leaders might be more advantageous, and also more likely, to use their skills at creating path-goal relationships to employ a more collaborative and creative solution to problems (Kiyak and Bozkurt, 2020). Ambiguous tasks prompt followers to seek out the leader’s advice and support, and the “leader-member” relationship can be even more critical when types of tasks are ambiguous. High levels of situational control resulting from the structure of the task would suggest that “leader-member” relations need not be so central. In tasks that are highly prescribed, it is the leader’s ability to communicate and arrange necessities that may matter more than leader affability. In unstructured tasks, the mechanisms leading to commitment and task performance would be centred on strong interpersonal relationships between leader and members because, in these situations, the leader would be called upon to make things up as they go along.
The Role of Position Power in Leadership
Position power refers to the degree of authority the leader holds within the organisation or group. This includes the leader's ability to reward or punish group members, assign tasks, and make decisions that affect the group. In Fiedler’s model, position power is the third situational variable that determines the leader’s level of control (Suharyanto and Lestari, 2020). When leaders have high position power, they have a stronger capacity to control group members and change their behaviour. Position power can be the most important of the situational variables, underpinning leadership effectiveness in contexts where “leader-member” relations are weak and/or tasks are unstructured. In these situations, formal power might be the only effective tool in the leader’s power arsenal, making it more likely that the leader can direct groups even absent strong interpersonal ties. In military organisations, for example, or other hierarchies, leaders predominantly use their position to help ensure compliance and discipline via formal power, especially in high-pressure or crisis situations.
However, while position power can enhance a leader’s control, it may not always lead to effective leadership. Leaders who are excessively task-focused and prefer to act alone, without the presence of others, can undermine trust and encourage resistance or withdrawal by their team (Bowman, 2023). By comparison, leaders who adopt a more collaborative or participation-based leadership style can achieve far better outcomes in terms of employee engagement, satisfaction and performance. Position power plays a significant part in Fiedler’s contingency theory, and suggests that “leader-member” relations might not be the most disparaging factor after all. Where a leader has strong formal power, they might be able to mitigate poor “leader-member” relations because they have their position power to direct the group for them. However, position power won’t work as effectively in situations where an ability to cooperate and collaborate is crucial to success.
Evaluating the Importance of “leader-member” Relations in Different Contexts
While Fiedler’s contingency theory suggests that “leader-member” relations are the most important factor in determining situational control, the relative importance of this factor may vary depending on the context (Maisyaroh et al., 2019). In some situations, “leader-member” relations may indeed be the most critical determinant of leadership effectiveness, while in others, task structure or position power may play a more significant role.
For example, in highly collaborative, knowledge-based environments such as research teams, creative industries, or project-based work “leader-member” relations may be the most important factor. These can include work groups, sales teams and school-board groups, where a leader’s ability to earn trust, forge collaborative behaviour and generate a good team spirit are critical. Research has found that in such groups, the leaders who build stronger relationships with followers also achieve higher levels of innovation, creativity and problem-solving (Budiningsih and Soehari , 2022).
Conversely, in more hierarchical, task-oriented environments such as manufacturing, construction, or military operations task structure and position power may be more important. In such cases, organisationally defined situational control may prevail, in which the clarity of the task to be accomplished and the formal legitimacy of the leader may be of prime importance in establishing leadership. Formal leaders in such contexts may not need to cultivate strong relationships with followers, because the tasks are defined and their legitimacy is clearly delineated (Jung, Ullah and Choi, 2021). “Leader-member” relations become more or less important, depending on where a group is at in its journey from infancy to maturity.. That is, motivating a group to focus on collective efforts rather than on individuality.
Critical Evaluation of Fiedler's Claim
Fiedler's contingency theory posits that “leader-member” relations are the most critical factor in determining situational control. This claim has been widely supported by research, especially in contexts where trust, cooperation, and interpersonal dynamics play a key role in leadership effectiveness. Good “leader-member” relations foster trust, respect, and loyalty, enabling the leader to influence followers more effectively. In scenarios where collaboration and consensus are essential—such as in creative industries, teams working on ambiguous tasks, or highly interdependent groups—the quality of the relationship between the leader and the team is crucial. In such cases, strong interpersonal connections are often the driving force behind successful leadership.
However, Fiedler’s theory has limitations, particularly in its singular focus on “leader-member” relations as the dominant factor in situational control. Whereas this trait element of leadership is undoubtedly important, there are further task situational elements such as degree of task structure and position power that can be crucial in determining leadership effectiveness. A task’s structure refers to the extent to which that task is reasonably well-defined and basically unambiguous (Deshwal and Ali, 2020). Generally, when tasks are highly structured, meaning that their goals are clear and they can be subdivided into clear subtasks, and the environmental task is reasonably well-defined and there is little uncertainty, task-oriented leadership becomes more effective than relationship-oriented leadership. Leaders in structured or informational transactional environments can be successful just by making sure that tasks are done, since the uncertainty inherent in the transactional environment is minimised by definition of the task. In other words, under conditions of structure, “leader-member” relations can be somewhat downplayed because follower efforts are guided by the unambiguous clarity of the task.
Similarly, position power, the formal authority a leader holds can also significantly influence leadership success. In a hierarchical organisation, or where factors that influence compliance and discipline are paramount, such as the military or in manufacturing, formal authority of the leader to reward or punish the behaviour of others is more likely to be more significant. It is rather than the quality of the interactions with others. In work contexts where getting the job done is high priority and where performance is more important than concern for followers, formal power may sometimes result in task completion without the need for “leader-member” relations. Leaders who rely on formal power may be adept regardless of how they engage with their subordinates.
One of the main criticisms of Fiedler's contingency theory is its rigidity in defining leadership styles (GeeksforGeeks, 2024). Fiedler suggests that leaders are either task-oriented or relationship-oriented, and that this style is relatively fixed, determined by their least preferred co-worker (LPC) score. This binary approach overlooks the adaptability that many leaders demonstrate in practice (Asana, 2024). Evidence from leadership research suggested, for example, that six of the most effective leaders were able to change their leadership style, depending on the situation. In a crisis situation, the leader might shift toward task orientation, when deciding quickly, providing clarity about the plan and focusing attention on the task are important. In contrast, when the leader is in a team-building setting or after a significant change, the same person might shift toward relationship orientation to build trust and increase collaboration with team members. Being able to switch between “task-oriented” and “relationship-oriented” leadership was inconsistent with the central principle of Fielder’s theory.
Moreover, Fiedler's theory does not account for the growing importance of emotional intelligence (EI) in modern leadership theories. Emotional intelligence is the ability to identify, understand, manage and evaluate the emotions of oneself, as well as of others (Abdel-Fattah, 2020). Leader EI predicts the ability to create relationships to followers relative to leaders who lack this capacity. It is also useful for making sense of complex social dynamics and acting wisely while adaptively changing leadership style as circumstances dictate. As such, emotionally intelligent leaders tend to be more effective across contexts, because they know how to leverage interpersonal relationships and maintain a balance between affective and task-focused approaches. Leaders with EI would know when a situation calls for more empathy and affiliative engagement, and when a task-focused, more directive and outcome-oriented approach works best in order to accomplish task goals.
In that sense, while “leader-member” relations are certainly important, Fiedler’s theory causes leadership to be simplified into tasks or stylistic expressions when, in reality, people’s fitness for the challenge varies depending on their emotional intelligence and adaptability. Leaders high in emotional intelligence are not necessarily contained in any one style but can switch back and forth between task and relationship effortlessly, depending on the circumstances. Such flexibility is associated with greater leadership effectiveness, which perhaps acknowledges that although “leader-member” relations are critical to effective leadership, they play only a partial role (Crans et al., 2022). Yet this viewpoint potentially downplays variables such as task structure and position power, and ignores the flexibility and emotional intelligence displayed by many successful leaders. Leaders who respond to situational demands by varying between task-oriented leadership and relationship-oriented behaviours are likely to be more effective than those who rely on a narrow leadership dimension.
Conclusion
Fiedler’s contingency theory shows that each situation demands a different approach and that no leader style works across the board. The goodness-of-leadership is not inherent in the leader’s traits or personality characteristics but derives from situational factors. It is a contingent model of leadership effectiveness. The contingency perspective specifically highlights that certain styles are more likely to result in better performance in a favourable situation, while other styles are preferred in a negative situation. Fiedler’s contingency theory suggests that a talented leader cannot be a great leader in all situations; rather, effectiveness is contingent on the relationship between the leader and his or her team, and the structure of the task or mission and the authority granted to the leader. Fiedler’s assertion that “leader-member” relations are the most important factor in determining situational control is supported by research, particularly in contexts where trust and cooperation are critical to success. However, the theory’s emphasis on “leader-member” relations may overlook the importance of other situational factors, such as task structure and position power, in certain contexts.
Ultimately, the place of “leader-member” relations in the general picture of what makes leadership effective depends to a large extent on the context in which leadership unfolds. Sometimes, strong “leader-member” relations will be crucial to success. Other times, the structure of the task will be important, or it might just be that the position carries a degree of power that allows for widespread influence on performance outcomes. Good leaders are those who, recognising the ebb and flow of situational demands, are capable of tuning their style accordingly, putting aside emotional attachment to strong interpersonal relations when such things aren’t important. In this sense, while “leader-member” relations are important, they are only one piece of the broader puzzle of effective leadership.
Reference
Abdel-Fattah, D.H. (2020). Emotional Intelligence and Emotional Stability in Crises. Journal of Psychiatry and Psychiatric Disorders, [online] 4(2), pp.56–62. Available at: https://www.fortuneonline.org/articles/emotional-intelligence-and-emotional-stability-in-crises.html?url=emotional-intelligence-and-emotional-stability-in-crises.
Adeoye, M.A. (2021). Explanatory Remarks on Fiedler’s Theory of Consequences. ResearchGate, [online] 1(2), pp.419–426. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Moses-Adeoye-3/publication/369588848_Explanatory_Remarks_on_Fiedler [Accessed 5 Oct. 2024].
Asana (2024). Fiedler’s contingency theory: Why leadership isn’t uniform. [online] Asana. Available at: https://asana.com/resources/fiedlers-contingency-theory.
Bowman, S. (2023). Safe to Great: The New Psychology of Leadership. [online] Google Books. Available at: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sZDQEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT8&dq=Leaders+who+are+excessively+task-focused+and+prefer+to+act+alone [Accessed 5 Oct. 2024].
Budiningsih, I. and Soehari , T. (2022). Strengthening innovative leadership in the turbulent environment. [online] Google Books. Available at: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ZpRwEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA57&dq=the+leaders+who+build+stronger+relationships+with+followers+also+achieve+higher+levels+of+innovation [Accessed 5 Oct. 2024].
Crans, S., Aksentieva, P., Beausaert, S. and Segers, M. (2022). Learning leadership and feedback seeking behavior: Leadership that spurs feedback seeking. Frontiers in Psychology, [online] 13(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.890861.
Deshwal, V. and Ali, M.A. (2020). A systematic review of various leadership theories. [online] Available at: https://www.academia.edu/download/76301136/1399.pdf 8(1), 38-43.
GeeksforGeeks (2024). Fiedler’s Contingency Theory of Leadership. [online] GeeksforGeeks. Available at: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/fiedlers-contingency-theory-of-leadership/ [Accessed 5 Oct. 2024].
Jung, K.B., Ullah, S.M.E. and Choi, S.B. (2021). The Mediated Moderating Role of Organizational Learning Culture in the Relationships among Authentic Leadership, Leader-Member Exchange, and Employees’ InnovativeBehavior. Sustainability, 13(19), p.10802. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910802.
Kiyak, A. and Bozkurt, F. (2020). A review on impact of leadership styles in organizations. Sakarya Üniversitesi ??letme Enstitüsü Dergisi, [online] 2(2), pp.87–91. doi:https://doi.org/10.47542/sauied.651557.
Maisyaroh, Imron, A., Burhanuddin, Juharyanto, Satria, R. and Puspitaningtyas, I. (2019). Implementation of Situational Leadership in Educational Organizations. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Education and Management (COEMA 2019), 381. doi:https://doi.org/10.2991/coema-19.2019.17.
Méndez, J.L. (2020). Leadership and Change in the Public Sector. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1397.
Njoku, H.I. and Guillermo, R.M. (2023). Leadership styles and employee engagement in the food industry of MSME’s. 5(2), pp.35–51. doi:https://doi.org/10.55214/jcrbef.v5i2.211.
Reams, L.C. (2023). Fred Fiedler’s contingency model revisited: 30 years later. Philosophy of Education, 29(1), pp.111–124. doi:https://doi.org/10.31874/2309-1606-2023-29-1-6.
Rodi?, M. and Mari?, S. (2021). Leadership style and employee readiness: basic factors of leadership efficiency. Strategic Management - International Journal of Strategic Management and Decision Support Systems in Strategic Management, [online] 26(1). Available at: https://smjournal.rs/index.php/home/article/view/21.
Shala, B., Prebreza, A. and Ramosaj, B. (2021). The contingency theory of management as a factor of acknowledging the leaders-managers of our time study case: The practice of the contingency theory in the company avrios. Open Access Library Journal, [online] 8(9), pp.1–20. doi:https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1107850.
Suharyanto, A. and Lestari, R.D. (2020). The Fall and Rise of The Contingency Theory of Leadership. Iapa Proceedings Conference, [online] pp.479–496. doi:https://doi.org/10.30589/proceedings.2020.423.
Tremblay, M., Gaudet, M.-C. and Parent-Rocheleau, X. (2021). How and When Relative Leader–Member Exchange (RLMX) Invigorates Attendance at Work Within a Context of LMX Differentiation. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, p.154805182198928. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051821989289.
Fill the form to continue reading
Would you like to schedule a callback?
Send us a message and we will get back to you
Highlights
Earn While You Learn With Us
Confidentiality Agreement
Money Back Guarantee
Live Expert Sessions
550+ Ph.D Experts
21 Step Quality Check
100% Quality
24*7 Live Help
On Time Delivery
Plagiarism-Free
81 Isla Avenue Glenroy, Mel, VIC, 3046 AU
