562 Unit 3

562 Unit 3
Student’s Name:
Institution of Affiliation:
562 Unit 3
Fielder’s Contingency Theory of leadership identified three primary factors that are considered when moving leaders into situations that are appropriate for their leadership styles. The situational favorableness lies in the capacity of a leader to control a particular group in any circumstance. This element comes second in the contingency model that Fielder identified. More importantly, it is only those leaders with situational control, who are confident that whatever they say is followed.
On the contrary, those who cannot assume control of a situation are not sure whether their subordinates can follow and execute their demands. The reason behind it is the importance of situational control to leadership efficacy. This factor is broken down into three major components; Leader-member relations, the position of power and task structure. Furthermore, there is no ideal leader. Both the relationship-oriented and task-oriented leaders are only valid if their style fits a particular situation. The contingency theory gives room for envisaging the features of the appropriate circumstances for efficacy. Three primary factors are considered when in any situational control:
1. Leader-Member Relations, which refers to the level of mutual trust, confidence, and reverence among a leader and the juniors. In a case where the leader-member relationship is weak, the leader is likely to shift focus away from his subordinates to help regulate conflict and conduct within the group.

2. Task Structure that denotes the level in which group tasks are structured in a precise manner. The lack of structuring tasks results in ambiguous jobs with no correct and transparent approach to completion. On the other hand, in instances where a task is structured in a manner that makes work easy, the goal becomes clear to all team members. Everyone comes on board because the job is not ambiguous, but rather straightforward. Furthermore, everyone has an idea about the correct approach to reaching the set goal.
3. The position of power refers to the extent to which the leader can influence rewards and punishments. For example, the chief executive officer of any entity has a high position of authority by the ability to reduce or increase the earnings of the employees. On the contrary, a regular office employee in the same company enjoys a low position of power because, though they may come up with new ideas or even lead new business deals, they have no control over rewarding and disciplining their coworkers.
When there are better leader-member relations, the task is structured efficiently, and there is a leader in a position of authority, the situation is said to be arguably favorable. According to Fielder’s theory, leaders are different. Whereas some perform better under circumstances that favorable and unfavorable conditions, others perform to their optimum in situations that are characterized by average favorability. Those in high echelons of power can distribute resources among their subordinates, giving them the ability to reward and punish others. Leaders who are in low positions of power do not enjoy the same liberty of controlling resources like those in senior leadership positions, and so lack an equivalent degree of managing situations.
In conclusion, since everyone’s personality is arguably stable, it can be changed. The contingency theory suggests that improving effectiveness requires modifying a situation to fit a leader. This is also called “job restructuring,” and a firm or a leader can increase or decrease the structure of an assignment and the position of authority. In addition to that, group development and training can also enhance leader-member relations.