Situational Approaches to Leadership

Situational Approaches to Leadership
Question One a)
The leader should use delegating in this situation. The architects are highly skilled which means that they have a highly competent. They also have high opinions, which shows that they are committed to their tasks and can do anything possible to ensure that the task is accomplished. Therefore, the leader does not need to offer them instructions since they are freethinkers or support as they are experts in the areas (Reed, 2015). However, the leadership role remains, which necessitates the availability of the leader to ensure that all the things are running smoothly and that the architects are making good progress. A leader’s availability is vital for the effective completion of the task.
Question One b)
The leader should use a directing approach in this case. The employees are teenagers who are yet to graduate from High school. However, despite this, their interest in the job shows that they are highly committed to the job. They lack the experience as this is their first job. They, therefore, fall into the D1 category and therefore are fit for directing approach where the leader offers less support and more directions (Reed, 2015). Directing involves giving them instructions on how to do the tasks in the restaurant to increases their competence.
Question one c)
The software engineers, in this case, need a supporting style of leadership. They are highly skilled which means that they need minimal directing. However, their strength in their individualism.

Each of the software engineers performs well when working alone. The task requires them to work as a team which may reduce their level of confidence. Therefore, the leader needs to be there to offer them high support wherever necessary (Wellington and Foster, 2009). With the right amount of support, the team can now perform the task since they already have the necessary skill to do it.
Question Two
Applicability of Fiedler’s Contingency Model
Using the Situational leadership model is easier in the above situation compared to the use of the Fiedler Contingency Model. Nevertheless, the model is applicable in some of the situations above. In the first case, the architects do not follow instructions. It means that their least preferred co-worker scale (LPC) is low. The leader, therefore, needs to concentrate on the task and not the relationship. Since the architects are highly skilled and motivated, it will not be a problem for them to accomplish the task.
In the second situation, the leader-employee relationship is bad as the employees are new in the restaurant. Moreover, the task is unstructured since many tasks that vary from time to time are involved (Luthans, Luthans, & Luthans, 2015). The leader is in a position of power. The situation necessitates a leader with High LPC for the appropriate tasks completion. It means that if the leader is a Low LPC, then he should be changed for a high LPC leader, which is not attainable at the moment. Fiedler’s contingency model states that the natural leadership of any individual is fixed and therefore it is easier to change a leader than his leadership skill. To employ the model, the employees need to have worked for some time with the leader for the development of the LPC scale. Therefore,
Additionally, applying the Fiedler contingency model in the third situation is difficult. The reason behind the claim is because the software engineers have never worked together again and neither has their leader worked with them before. Thus, it would pose a challenge formulating the LPC which is a requirement for the application of the model. However, with sufficient background information on the relationship of the leader with each of the software engineers, then the theory may be applicable. The other components, structured task and a position of power for the leader (supervisor) are present.
Applicability of Path-Goal Model
The Path-Goal is easily applicable across many situations. The leader’s behavior varies depending on the employees and the task environment’s characteristics. The leader’s role is to learn how best to motivate the employee to perform the task (Luthans, Luthans, & Luthans, 2015). In the first situation, the model is highly applicable. The employees know what path to follow to accomplish the task and have the skills to do so. Therefore, the leader only needs to adopt a participative approach when dealing with them.
In the second situation, the applicability of the model is also high. The leader knows that the employees who are students waiting to graduate high school have a high level of commitment towards the job. The tasks at hand are not difficult to accomplish, and he only needs to direct them on how to do the path since the environment is uncertain for the new employees.
Similarly, the theory is applicable in the third scenario. The information presented is sufficient to inform the leadership style required. Firstly, the leader should take note of the capabilities of each of the software engineers and their willingness to help accomplish the company’s mission. Then the leader will establish that there exists and uncertainty concerning how the employees can transfer their capabilities towards teamwork. Therefore, a leader should adapt a style that promotes teamwork, which will put the employees in the path of performing the task (Luthans, Luthans & Luthans, 2015).
Question Three
The situational theory is most useful for the real world. It considers that the work of the leader is to establish the different requirements of an employee and respond to them appropriately. It also considers that different employees require different amounts of support and direction, hence focuses the four leadership approaches on them (Perry, 2009). The four leadership skills are sufficient for any situation since the leadership style chosen is specific to each scenario. The theory is almost similar to the Path- Goal Theory in its construction. The Path-Goal theory concentrates on guiding the employee to achieve the goal by inspiring them to do so (Avery, 2004). However, the theory offers four main styles of leadership. The styles are not exhaustive of all scenarios and therefore, leaders may find themselves in a situation where they have to look for other styles.
The Contingency theory is the least useful in the real world. First of all, it lacks flexibility since it necessitates the use of the LPC scale which seals the fate of the leader by terming him either a high LPC or a Lower LPC. It means that if a leader is a high LPC and a Task requires a low LPC, then the leader should be changed (Avery, 2004). Scholars have also determined that the LPC scale is about 50% reliable and, therefore, not a reliable measure of leadership capabilities. Moreover, the LPC may be wrong if it shows moderate results or if the leader worked with a bad colleague who makes him score lowly in LPC instead of highly. Thus, the order of the theory according to their usefulness is the Situational theory, the Contingency Model, and the Path-Goal Model.
References
Avery, G. (2004).Understanding Leadership: Paradigms and Cases. Chapter 4: Micro-level Leadership Theories. SAGE Publications Ltd, London, pp. 78-86.
Perry, M. P. (2009). Business Driven PMO Setup: Practical Insights, Techniques, and Case Examples for Ensuring Success. Chapter 7: Project management office leadership. Fort Lauderdale, FL: J. Ross Publishing, pp. 229-232.
Reed, J. (2015, July 10). Situational Leadership [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om2Hq8sZqDI
Wellington, P., & Foster, N. (2009). Chapter 3: Leader styles and required attributes. Effective Team Leadership for Engineers. Stevenage: IET, pp. 40-45.
Luthans, F., Luthans, B. C., & Luthans, K.W. (2015). Organizational Behavior: An Evidence-based Approach. Chapter 13: Effective leadership processes. Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing, pp. 385-389.