Of all the leadership theories clubbed under of contingency group, I find Fiedler’s theory the least preferred. Fiedler’s theory was the first that marked departure from the traditional Great Man theory by basing its assertions on clinical data, and was purely inductive in nature. It was the first leadership theory that provided a taxonomical, methodical framework for matching an individual’s personality type (assessed through LPC – or lease preferred co-worker – score) with his/her context. However, its major shortcoming is the assertion that in case an individual’s personality is not suitable for a certain job type and/or situation, he/she should be moved to a more compatible context. The underlying assumption is that an individual’s personality type is unchangeable, and different people are needed in different situations.
Later contributions to the contingency theory sought to overcome this loophole by proposing models that support development of individuals to become effective leaders under a range of situations. My understanding of the issue with Fiedler’s theory was informed by a recent article by Gallo (“How to Help Your Team Bounce Back from Failure”) in Harvard Business Review. The article sets out some dos and don’ts for leaders facing an unsuccessful outcome, and provides advice on how to dispel the negative sentiments that failure brews. In essence, it argues in favour of different management responses by the same leader in different situations of success and failure. While the explicit focus is on guidelines to a leader in failure situations, the fact that it does not call for bringing in people with different set of personality traits to lead the team after failure implies that it takes cognizance of the need to wear different hats during different situations, and also acknowledges what Fiedler’s theory does not: that the same person can use various tools and techniques to manage people under different – and at times diagrammatically opposite – situations.
The aforementioned article – especially when read in conjunction with Fiedler’s theory – poses some critical questions. Is it possible to develop a structured questionnaire that can assess an individual’s preparedness to act as an effective leader in post-failure situations? If yes, would it be possible to nurture the needed personality traits and skills in case he/she does not possess them? These are the questions that I believe provide an interesting opportunity to engage further with the subject of leadership studies.
Works Cited
Galo, Amy. “How to Help Your Team Bounce Back from Failure.” Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business Review, 27 Feb. 2015. Web. 30 Jun. 2015.
