Directors and leaders in any organisation are expected to act upon the actions of their employees through several channels. Some of these include pass oning with staff members. exciting subsidiaries to work hard and guaranting that all the resources within the company are allocated good. These outlooks can either be met successfully or unsuccessfully. Numerous research workers felt the demand to come up with theories that govern successful leading. One of these theories is known as the eventuality theory.
An analysis of the eventuality theory
Fielder ( 1964 ) came up with this attack to leading after recognizing that leaders could work good if they changed their manners to accommodate the state of affairs at manus. This is where the name eventuality originates. Fielder conducted several surveies of effectual and uneffective leaders. Thereafter he concluded that the most successful attack would be to fit organisational scenes with leading manners. These two parametric quantities form the footing of the eventuality theory of leading.
Harmonizing to Fiedler. leading manner may be defined as the manner leaders and employees interact with one another. One can non claim that a manager’s leading manner alterations from clip to clip. On the contrary. this is a fixed parametric quantity since every leader has a different personality. The latter term mostly affects the nature of the leading manner.
Since this trait is of import. Fielder came up with a method for categorising leading manners. He used the Least Preferred Coworker Scale ( LPC ) . The Scale is applied merely to leaders ; the latter are asked to rate the individual they feel has worked really ill with them. The graduated table starts from one to eight and may be a categorization of a colleague from the yesteryear or the present depending on which worker was the worst. Examples of personality traits that guide the grading procedure include ;
- Unfriendly versus friendly workers
- Hostile versus supportive
- Guarded versus unfastened
- Uncooperative versus co-op ( Fiedler. 1964 )
All the latter traits are in go uping order with figure 1 stand foring the character trait on the left while figure 8 represents the character trait on the right.
The LPC scale’s chief intent is to find whether a peculiar signifier of leading manner is task oriented or people oriented. Leaderships who score high Markss in the graduated table favour interpersonal relationships. Consequently. those leaders who rate their colleagues in a negative visible radiation may be more interested in the undertaking at manus. This besides implies that such leaders have hapless interpersonal relationships. However. critics have asserted that such traits may non needfully be accurate. Some persons may portray their colleagues in a negative visible radiation but still be acute on interpersonal relationships.
Fielder ( 1964 ) felt that those leaders who managed to fit the demands of the undertaking with a dominant personality trait tended to be more successful. Dominant personality traits mostly determine the attack chosen by leaders i. e. either people oriented or undertaking oriented attack.
The LPC graduated table indicates whether or non a certain single values interpersonal relationships. In instance leaders score extremely. so they usually consider interpersonal relationships as a important portion of implementing undertakings. However. those who score low Markss in the graduated table value undertaking completion more than anything else does. Consequently. most of them may non trouble oneself making close relationships with their employees.
Fielder ( 1964 ) was besides concerned with the organisational environment or what is besides called the situational variable. Harmonizing to him. the situational variable can be defined as that facet within the organisation that can let leaders to exercise influence within their squad.
He divided the situational variables as follows ;
-Leader to member relationships
The leader-member construction is defined as the degree of credence squad participants have towards their leader. Task structures may be defined as the degree of occupation specificity among subsidiaries. Last. place power is described as the degree of authorization attributed to a leader as consequence of his place within the organisation. ( Fiedler. 1964 )
In the Leader-member state of affairs. a leader would be more successful if he establishes strong links between himself and the other people within the organisation ; this is through swearing and esteeming members of his organisation. Additionally. successful leaders in the undertaking construction state of affairs are those 1s that specify occupation item good. Powerful leaders in the place power state of affairs are those 1s that exercise their right to fire and engage or to honor persons within the organisation.
All the latter three state of affairss create eight leading manners. These are so divided into two of import groups known as the relationship or undertaking oriented leaders. Five of the leading styles autumn under the latter class.
Fielder ( 1964 ) felt that undertaking oriented attack were more appropriate in catastrophes or utmost state of affairss. In instances where a fire strikes an organisation. so leaders would be more efficient if they applied the undertaking oriented attack. At this clip. the issue of place power is non really relevant and neither are the relationships of the colleagues. In utmost instances or in catastrophes. the persons who direct undertakings most expeditiously become the leaders. The opposite is true for leaders who try using a people oriented attack. This would intend sing what people think and this would finally detain outcomes. Such instances require merely the fastest responses for endurance.
Task oriented relationships are besides of import in bluish neckband occupations. This is because such workers usually require way and occupation specificity. Therefore. this leading attack would be most appropriate. On the other manus. such scenarios may still be characterized by strong leader member relationships. The latter state of affairs can be effected when leaders reward worker good for their attempts.
Relationship oriented leading manners may be more favourable in state of affairss where the organisational environment is extremely predictable. Some of the most appropriate environments include research institutes. In such fortunes. subsidiaries would non wish it if their leaders interfered with the nature of their undertaking. Here. it would be more appropriate to work on constructing relationships with subsidiaries.
It should be noted that Fielder’s theory does non cover all the possible factors impacting leading. Some leaders may be more effectual if they undergo developing or derive experience on the occupation. Such factors have non been accounted for by the eventuality theory.
Excessively. Fielder was seeking to state that leaders are non merely successful or unsuccessful. Leaderships can either be effectual in certain state of affairss and non all of them. Therefore. all persons can go leaders if they choose the most appropriate state of affairs to use their leading manners. Additionally. it is possible to do a leader more effectual by changing the followers ; place power. undertaking construction and leader member relationships. It should besides be noted that Fielder’s graduated table can be rather appropriate in finding leading manners.
Fiedler. E. ( 1964 ) : A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness ; Journal for Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press 1. 12. 149-190