LEAD 5653 Module 2 Contingency Leadership Analysis Example

Two Night Shifts, Two Right Answers: Applying Path-Goal and Fiedler's Contingency Model to a Water Utility's New Membrane Plant

Student Name

American College of Education

LEAD5653: Leadership Theories, Frameworks, and Philosophies

Module 2 Assignment

Instructor Name

July 10, 2028

Two Situations

Module 1 followed the invented water system's head of operations for two weeks and found that both trait and behavior models missed how the director's conduct changed with circumstances. That gap is where contingency thinking starts: the claim that no single way of leading works everywhere, and that what works depends on who is being led and on what. The utility has just created a clear test. It has opened a new membrane filtration plant, whose night shift is staffed by six operators who passed their state certification exams in the past year and have never run membranes, working with procedures the vendor wrote and nobody at the utility has tested. At the same time, the conventional plant's night shift is run by a crew averaging 17 years of experience, working procedures they helped write. The director supervises both. Leading two crews the same way is fair only if the two crews are the same.

Path-Goal Theory Applied

Path-goal theory holds that a leader's job is to help followers reach their goals by clarifying the path to them and removing obstacles, and that the right leader behavior depends on the followers and the task. In his reformulation, House (1996) argued that leader behavior is effective to the extent that it complements the followers' environment and abilities by supplying what is otherwise missing, and ineffective when it duplicates what followers or the task already provide. The theory distinguishes directive behavior, clarifying expectations and methods; supportive behavior, showing concern for followers' welfare; participative behavior, consulting followers; and achievement-oriented behavior, setting challenging goals.

For the new membrane crew, the task is unstructured and unfamiliar, the procedures are unproven and the followers lack experience and are, by their own account, anxious about making a mistake that could affect water quality. Path-goal theory predicts that directive behavior will help, by supplying the clarity the task lacks, and that supportive behavior will help, by reducing the stress of an uncertain, high-stakes job. For the veteran crew, the task is highly structured and the followers already know it better than the director does. Directive behavior would duplicate what they have and would likely be resented as micromanagement; participative and achievement-oriented behavior, consulting them on improvements and setting stretch goals, fit better.

Fiedler's Model Applied to the Director

Fiedler's contingency model takes a different view. Fiedler (1964) proposed that a leader's style, measured as either task-motivated or relationship-motivated, is relatively stable, and that effectiveness depends on how favorable the situation is for the leader, judged by three factors: leader-member relations, task structure and position power. Task-motivated leaders were predicted to do best in very favorable or very unfavorable situations, and relationship-motivated leaders in moderately favorable ones.

The director, whose daily lists, confirmed owners and hourly check-ins were documented in Module 1, is best described as task-motivated, though with strong consideration. At the conventional plant, relations are good, the task is structured and the director's position power is strong, a very favorable situation in which the model predicts a task-motivated leader will do well. At the membrane plant, position power is strong but the task is unstructured and relations are untested, since the new operators barely know the director, which makes the situation moderately favorable at best. Here the model predicts that a task-motivated leader will be less effective, precisely where the stakes are highest.

The empirical record on Fiedler's model is mixed. Peters et al. (1985), applying meta-analytic methods to studies of the model, found general support for its predictions in laboratory studies but weaker and less consistent support in field studies. The model is therefore better used as a way of thinking than as a precise forecast.

Where the Theories Disagree

The two theories disagree on a basic question: can the director change? Path-goal theory assumes a leader can adapt behavior to each situation, and Module 1 showed the director doing exactly that during the main break, shifting from consultative to directive within an hour. Fiedler's model assumes the underlying style is stable, and that leaders who try to behave against it will be less effective and less convincing than leaders whose style fits.

Both have a point in this case. The director can supply directive structure to the membrane crew, as path-goal theory recommends, because structure is the director's strength. What the director may find harder is sustained supportive behavior toward anxious new operators the director barely knows, which is less natural to a task-motivated leader. Fiedler's answer to such a mismatch is to change the situation instead of the leader: improve leader-member relations or task structure so that the situation becomes more favorable.

A Third Contingency View

A third widely taught approach, situational leadership, reaches a similar practical conclusion by a simpler route. It proposes that leaders should adjust the amount of direction and support they give according to each follower's development level, from high direction for new and uncertain followers to delegation for capable and committed ones. The model is popular in management training because it is easy to apply, which is also its weakness. Thompson and Vecchio (2009), testing three versions of the theory with employees and their supervisors, found limited support for its specific predictions, with the clearest support for the idea that followers with less experience benefit from more structure from their leaders.

That modest finding is the part of the theory most relevant here. The membrane crew's operators are capable and certified but new to this technology, which places them at the development level where the theory, and the evidence that supports it, calls for high direction. The veterans are at the other end, where direction would be wasted. Situational leadership adds little beyond path-goal theory's analysis, but its language, direction and support adjusted to development, may be useful for explaining the plan to the superintendents who will carry it out, since they have all attended training in it.

Recommendations

Drawing on both theories, the paper makes four recommendations. First, lead the membrane crew directively for the first three months: a written checklist for every shift, a fixed call with the director or the plant superintendent at the start of each night and clear rules for when to call for help. Second, change the situation by moving one veteran operator from the conventional plant to the membrane night shift as lead operator for six months. That single move would add experience and supportive peer relationships where they are missing and would make the situation more favorable for a task-motivated director, as Fiedler's model suggests. Third, lead the veteran crew participatively: ask them to review the membrane plant's procedures, which uses their expertise and gives them an achievement goal. Fourth, schedule a review at three months to shift the membrane crew toward participative leadership as their experience grows, since path-goal theory predicts that directive behavior will become redundant, and eventually irritating, as followers master the task.

References

Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 149-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60051-9

House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7

Peters, L. H., Hartke, D. D., & Pohlmann, J. T. (1985). Fiedler's contingency theory of leadership: An application of the meta-analysis procedures of Schmidt and Hunter. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 274-285. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.2.274

Thompson, G., & Vecchio, R. P. (2009). Situational leadership theory: A test of three versions. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 837-848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.014