Within the structure of F. E. Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership (e.g., a leader-match concept, or it attempts to match leaders to right situations or setting), leadership styles are expressed as task motivated (e.g., leaders are concerned with reaching a goal) or relationship motivated (leaders are concerned interpersonal relationships) (Northouse, 2007). In order to evaluate leader styles, Fiedler built up the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale to assess the different between task motivated leaders and relationship motivated leaders. As leaders who achieve high on the LPC scale, they are considered to be relationship motivated; and those who get low on the scale are believed as task motivated (Northouse).
Under the contingency theory, there are three main situations that a leader would involve: 1) leader-member relations which is established on the group atmosphere and the level of confidence, loyalty, and magnetism that the teams consider for the leader; 2) task structure which is built on “(a) the requirements of the task are clearly stated and known by the people required to perform them, (b) the path to accomplishing the task has few alternatives, (c) completion of the task can be clearly demonstrated, and (d) only a limited number of correct solutions to the task exist” (Northouse, 2007, p. 114); and 3) position power that is based on the total authority a leader has to hire and remunerate or to discipline and penalize
Overall, the best situations or rating for organizations are those involving excellence leader-follower relations, clear and definite task with well-built and strong leader or executive position power; on the other hand, the least favorable situations or rating are those have deprived leader-follower relations, undefined tasks and frail leader position power; and at last, situations which are ranked or valued moderately favorable plunge between these two ends (Northouse).
As a senior executive in this company, my job was to lead a task force (a team of managers) to plan the long term (five to ten years) marketing strategy for the organization. Since our management recognized that traditional planning mainly reported financial outcome or results and mostly seldom or could not capture value generated from the organization’s intangible assets (e.g., customer relationships, human resources, improvement, innovation, procedures, and skills), we decided to utilize “balanced strategic planning” by approaching tactic from four outlooks: financial (traditional view), customer (buyer satisfaction metrics—a major indicator of firm current performance), internal process (daily activity), and learning and growth (organizational culture, training and development, communication, and information management (Ferrell & Hartline, 2008). In order to succeed and achieve our objectives, we ensure to apply five common approaches when employing the balanced strategic planning: a) Translate the plan and tactic into action or operational terms, phrases, or expression (e.g., our company mottos are: “we care customer services and we provide 24/7 storefront emergency services.” In this case, we would like to illustrate the cause-and-effect relationships that demonstrate how intangible assets are converted into value for clients and all stakeholders—this gives a common support of reference and suggestion for all members and staffs of the firm); b) Support and align the firm to strategy (e.g., ensuring all divisions, functions and efforts are coordinated—e.g., every six months, all departments’ managers will meet together in a full day conference, and evaluate the balanced strategic planning); c) Make strategy or plan everyone’s everyday job (e.g., taking action and not just talking); d) Make strategy or plan a continual process (e.g., assessing and reviewing the results regularly, and ensuring in the right direction and strategy); and finally, e) mobilize change through executive leadership (e.g., in order to ensure our management has energetic leader who can stand up for the strategy, and the balanced scorecard, the leader of the task force must renew every seven years (Ferrell & Hartline, 2008).
Overall, we experienced all three main situations of the contingency theory with the most favorable category; leader-member relations (e.g., confidence and loyalty) in our task force was great and soaring—there were almost 100% attendance in all our task force meetings; our task structure variable was well defined with long term balanced strategic planning; and finally, as a senior manager and the leader of the task force, I have the position power to reward, hire or discipline employee. In all, our long term balanced strategic planning has succeeded, and our customers and businesses keep growing steadily even in this slow economy.
References
Ferrell, O., & Hartline, M. (2008). Marketing strategy (4th edition). Mason, OH:
Thomson Higher education.
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership (4th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications Inc.
RSS Feed