Contingency Theory & Crazy Horse Course Work

1.
Based on the contingency model and the situational variables, I agree to some extent that Crazy Horse had poor-leader member relations. He never understood his people. However, despite the fact that he instilled fear in his people by shooting their horses in case they tried to escape doesn’t credit him a poor leader- member relations. I tend to believe that Crazy Horse did this with the zeal he had for his people. His people didn’t fail him. He never wanted to see them executed. This shows that to some extent he had love for them thus good leader-member relations. I however fully agree that he had a high task structure and strong position power. He had all the power to decide people’s execution or freedom by either letting them to surrender or not. On structure of tasks, he had high task structure. He made it clear to his people that none was to surrender and execution was least welcomed. I therefore disagree that Crazy Horse would be a number 5 in the contingency model but rather a number 1.
2.
I do agree with this. The adversities faced by Crazy Horse during the winter of 1876 to 1877 makes him assigned a contingency model of a 1. Despite the fact that he was insensitive to his peoples demand, he is credited to be having good leader member-relations simply because his main concern was the well being of his people and therefore for his love to them he never wanted his executed. This as well paints him as an individual with high task structure as he solely wanted the freedom of his people during the winter. He never wanted an execution for his people. High task structure merits him. Being able to rebuke and even shoot people who were for the opinion of escaping, he deserves to be rated as a leader with strong power. He had the power to hold back people’s movements and dismantle their way of thinking. His compromise however doesn’t portray him as having weak power since he did this solely with his people in mind. I therefore agree with your point of view.