Evaluate Turner’s view of contingency leadership Essay Example
Question 1: Turners view of contingency leadership
Turners’ view of the contingency leadership theory is based on the employee aspects. In this case, she believes that the traits and characteristics of the employees highly impact on the leadership approach. That she believed that a change in the employees’ characteristics would be the warranting approach to change her leadership style. However, I do not agree with Turners view of contingency leadership. To my understanding the contingency leadership, developed by Fielder holds that a contingency leadership approach is mainly based on the leaders’ traits. In this case, the theory held that the adoption of the contingency leadership approach is reliant not on the employee characteristics or actions, but on the leaders’ individual characteristics (Ellyson et al, 2012, p.7). This formed the basis on which the two aspects of the contingency leaders, namely the people and task oriented leaders were developed. The classification of the two contingency leadership aspects were based on the development of a least preferred co-worker scale on the model. As such, the task oriented leaders had a negative perception on their preferred co-workers’ than the people oriented leaders respectively (Van de Ven, Ganco and Hinings, 2013, p.396).
Essentially, the contingency theory argues that a change in the leadership theory is based and highly dependent on the leaders’ willingness and readiness to change. This is an aspect contrary to Turners perception. On her part, Turner argued that she could only change her leadership style if the employees showed willingness to participate in decision making. However, the right approach was for the leader to change the leadership style and consequently motive and influence employees towards actively participating in the decision making process (Miller and Matzel, 2014, p.63).
Question 2: How to determine employee’s desire and ability to participate in decision making
There are a number of practical approaches and ways through which Turner, as the leaders can establish the nature and extent of employees’ willingness to participate in decision making. One of the strategic approaches to evaluate this is the use of teams and project management approach. Rather than confining to the centralised decision making process, the manager should allow for the initiation of projects and management teams (Robbins, Judge, Millett and Boyle, 2013, p.27). In this case, the teams, although headed by the supervisors should have the liberty and freedom to formulate their own operational decisions.
In this regard, the management should evaluate the number and quality of decisions formulated in such project management teams to measure the employees’ willingness. If the employees formulate many and quality decisions, it means that they are ready and willing to participate in strategic decision making. The second strategic approach through which to evaluate employees’ ability in decision making is a simulation practice (Clemen and Reilly, 2013, p.52). This includes evaluating employees by subjecting them to simulated reality business contexts and requiring them to make strategic decision as the leaders in such market situations. The adoption of such simulated situations would serve to demonstrate if the employees are cognisant of the existing market conditions, as well as their ability to critically analyse and evaluate options in the decision making process. This serves as a strategic tool for analyse their ability to make accurate and market right decisions.
Clemen, R., & Reilly, T. 2013, Making hard decisions with DecisionTools, Cengage Learning, New York.
Ellyson, L. M., Gibson, J. H., Nichols, M., & Doerr, A. 2012, “A study of Fiedler’s contingency theory among military leaders”, Academy of Strategic Management, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 7.
Miller, R. R., & Matzel, L. D. 2014, “Contingency and relative associative strength”, Contemporary learning theories: Pavlovian conditioning and the status of traditional learning theory, pp. 61-84.
Robbins, S., Judge, T. A., Millett, B., & Boyle, M. 2013, Organisational behaviour, Pearson Higher Education AU, London.
Van de Ven, A. H., Ganco, M., & Hinings, C. R. 2013, “Returning to the frontier of contingency theory of organizational and institutional designs”, The Academy of Management Annals, vol. 7,no. 1, pp. 393-440.
More Important Things