According to Nahavandi (2015), there are three major eras of modern leadership. Below is an illustration I made showing the three major eras of leadership.
The Trait Era assumed that leaders are born, that they have special characteristics and traits, and that leaders and followers have different traits (Nahavandi, 2015). However, studies found out that:
• There is no single trait or set of traits clearly define leaders.
• Traits play a minimal role.
• Traits are not the dominant factor in leadership.
The Behavior Era, on the other hand, assumed that behaviors are observable and measurable, can be taught, and they matter rather than behavior (Nahavandi, 2015). However, like in the traits era, studies found out that:
• Key behaviors are …show more content…
o Low LPC or task-motivated leaders will be effective in high and low control situations – situations 1, 2, 3, and 8. o High LPC or relationship-motivated leaders will be effective in moderate favorable situations – situations 4, 5, 6 and 7.
With a more favorable situation where a leader has high control:
• Task-motivated leader is effective because the situation is non-threatening, making the leader feel at ease, relaxed and draws self-esteem from task completion.
• On the other hand, a relationship-motivated leader is ineffective because the situation appears boring for the leader, making the leader feel there is nothing to do or nobody needs him/her.
With a less favorable situation where a leader has low control:
• Given the situation is chaotic that it has no group cohesion or no strong position power, a task-motivated leader will take over and make autocratic decisions without much concern for followers. Work will be done, however the followers might not be satisfied.
• Conversely, a relationship-motivated leader is ineffective because the situation appears like a nightmare for this leader, causing the leader feel to withdraw as her efforts to gain support fall on deaf …show more content…
A leader can change the group’s task assignment, change the leader-member relations in the group, or change the leader’s position power. Changing the situation to match the leader’s style is the main suggestion of this model.
SUMMARY:
There are three major eras of modern leadership namely trait era, behavior era and contingency era. The Fiedler Contingency Theory is the oldest and most highly researched contingency approach to leadership.
This model hypothesizes that leadership effectiveness is a function of the match or fit between leader’s style and the leadership situation. If the leader’s style matches the situation, then the leader will be effective. If it is not a match, then the leader is not effective. Therefore the effectivity of the leader is contingent upon the leader factor and situational control factors.
This model predicts whether a leader is task-motivated or relationship-motivated by measuring the LPC score, whether the leadership situation is favorable or unfavorable by assessing the three situational components, and whether a leader will be effective in any of these 8 particular settings.
Finally, this model assumes that it is easier to change the situation, rather than changing the leadership
The Trait Era assumed that leaders are born, that they have special characteristics and traits, and that leaders and followers have different traits (Nahavandi, 2015). However, studies found out that:
• There is no single trait or set of traits clearly define leaders.
• Traits play a minimal role.
• Traits are not the dominant factor in leadership.
The Behavior Era, on the other hand, assumed that behaviors are observable and measurable, can be taught, and they matter rather than behavior (Nahavandi, 2015). However, like in the traits era, studies found out that:
• Key behaviors are …show more content…
o Low LPC or task-motivated leaders will be effective in high and low control situations – situations 1, 2, 3, and 8. o High LPC or relationship-motivated leaders will be effective in moderate favorable situations – situations 4, 5, 6 and 7.
With a more favorable situation where a leader has high control:
• Task-motivated leader is effective because the situation is non-threatening, making the leader feel at ease, relaxed and draws self-esteem from task completion.
• On the other hand, a relationship-motivated leader is ineffective because the situation appears boring for the leader, making the leader feel there is nothing to do or nobody needs him/her.
With a less favorable situation where a leader has low control:
• Given the situation is chaotic that it has no group cohesion or no strong position power, a task-motivated leader will take over and make autocratic decisions without much concern for followers. Work will be done, however the followers might not be satisfied.
• Conversely, a relationship-motivated leader is ineffective because the situation appears like a nightmare for this leader, causing the leader feel to withdraw as her efforts to gain support fall on deaf …show more content…
A leader can change the group’s task assignment, change the leader-member relations in the group, or change the leader’s position power. Changing the situation to match the leader’s style is the main suggestion of this model.
SUMMARY:
There are three major eras of modern leadership namely trait era, behavior era and contingency era. The Fiedler Contingency Theory is the oldest and most highly researched contingency approach to leadership.
This model hypothesizes that leadership effectiveness is a function of the match or fit between leader’s style and the leadership situation. If the leader’s style matches the situation, then the leader will be effective. If it is not a match, then the leader is not effective. Therefore the effectivity of the leader is contingent upon the leader factor and situational control factors.
This model predicts whether a leader is task-motivated or relationship-motivated by measuring the LPC score, whether the leadership situation is favorable or unfavorable by assessing the three situational components, and whether a leader will be effective in any of these 8 particular settings.
Finally, this model assumes that it is easier to change the situation, rather than changing the leadership