Contingency model of leadership
Order Instructions:
Dear Admin,
I need an essay in the following subject:
After you have read the required journal article (Houghton and Yoho, 2005), complete the following:
Identify and describe the key components of the contingency model of leadership as presented by the authors. Analyse the relationship between certain key contingency factors and outcomes, such as follower involvement, dependence, creativity, and psychological empowerment. Evaluate the findings of the authors compared to the theories covered this week with regards to creating and sustaining productive leadership.
The following conditions must meet in the paper
1) I want a typical and a quality answer which should have about 830 words.
2) The answer must raise appropriate critical questions.
3) The answer must include examples from experience or the web with references from relevant examples from real companies.
4) Do include all your references, as per the Harvard Referencing System,
5) Please don’t use Wikipedia web site.
6) I need examples from peer reviewed articles or researches.
Appreciate each single moment you spend in writing my paper
Best regards
SAMPLE ANSWER
BL.ASS.W3
Houghton and Yoho (2005) present a contingency model of leadership that seeks to empower and encourage follower self-leadership. Key components of the model include follower development, task structure and situational urgency as well as how leadership approaches should be applied to make the model successful.
Employee empowerment and follower development results from the increased need for companies to compete efficiently given the modern competitive environment. This theory suggests increased involvement of employees through decentralized systems that allow them to be increasingly responsible for their own jobs. In linking this key contingency factor to the most appropriate approach to leadership, the authors note that the length of engagement between the employer and the employee determines the kind of leadership approach to adopt. Accordingly, transactional or directive leadership may apply for short-term engagements where efficiency is more important than follower development while a transformational leadership approach may apply for long-term engagements. This is highly applicable in real life as I have observed since employers who take on employees for short assignments such as laborers in the construction industry are less likely to be concerned about their development but more about their compliance and efficiency. On the other hand however, long-term employees often receive considerable investment on training and are likely to be more empowered. At PriceWaterHouse Coopers (PWC) for example, the employee-led strategy ensures that besides recruiting the most qualified candidates, training and continuous development of employees is given priority to ensure that the company remains at the top of competition (Macleod and Clarke, 2011).
Situational urgency is the second factor, which seeks to explain how the leadership approach may differ depending on the urgency of the situation. It puts fort that in crisis situations, the time for self-leadership capability development in followers is hardly available and therefore such urgency may call for utilization of a highly directive leadership style or transformational leadership style. A perfect example is in the police force where in responding to emergencies such as terrorist attacks, specific and directive orders may be necessary depending on the severity of the situation and the leader must therefore take charge to effectively coordinate the group; hence a directive style approach (Papworth, Milne and Boak, 2009). Empowering and transactional leadership approaches are more applicable in low urgency situations.
The last factor is the task environment which basically refers to how the task environment of the follower is structured or unstructured. Transactional leadership is deemed more applicable in well structured task situations while the directive approach would apply in unstructured task situations. In a factory setting where there is constant job rotation for example, it is difficult to have a structured job and directive leadership is therefore likely to apply; with followers taking instructions depending on their duty station.
The identified contingency factors have significant impact on outcomes within the organization including follower involvement, dependence, creativity, and psychological empowerment.
Empowerment and follower development has been proven to play a great role in promoting efficiency, creativity, follower involvement and psychological empowerment. According to Papworth, Milne and Boak (2009), employees who are empowered are more likely to ‘own’ their jobs and are therefore more committed to ensuring success. Furthermore, empowerment ensures that dependence is reduced and that employees are committed to company success as opposed to making it the responsibility of leaders only. Psychological empowerment also results because by giving followers autonomy in doing their jobs, leaders demonstrate that they can trust their followers.
Situational urgency depending on how it is handled may lead to the negative effect of excessive dependence of followers. This is especially in very urgent situations where directive approach to leadership is utilized. Why does this happen yet followers are well trained to handle emergency situations? Papworth, Milne and Boak (2009) notes that followers may be unable to execute simple actions because they are used to receiving specific orders from their leaders and are therefore not empowered to perform their tasks. In addition, the low expectations that leaders have on followers tend to make their productivity and creativity levels low.
Why is it important to effectively structure follower duties? One would ask. Houghton and Yoho (2009) note that in situations where jobs are highly unstructured, it is possible for employees to undermine the value of intrinsic motivation and that followers may as a result be demotivated; hence leading to low productivity. This is because there is no specific target or outcome that is expected of the employee and neither are there rewards aimed at encouraging achievement of such outcomes. Structured jobs which allow for easy delegation and follower empowerment on the other hand may result in increased psychological empowerment and consequently increased creativity. This is because followers are well informed on what they are expected to deliver and can easily come up with strategies that will allow productive outcomes.
The contingency model of leadership by Houghton and Yoho (2005) portrays a great level of similarity with theories aimed at creating and sustaining productive leadership covered in the course. It is notable that sustainable leadership is a question of creating a good relationship with followers and empowerment is one such approach. Productive leadership is not just about getting the job done but also minding the welfare of those who are executing the job. Motivation as discussed in this article is therefore of essence. In addition, follower development emerges as an important aspect of leadership as it not only promotes efficiency but also improves motivation; leading to better outcomes.
References
Houghton JD & Yoho, SK 2005, “Toward a contingency model of leadership and psychological empowerment: when should self-leadership be encouraged?” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 65-83.
Macleod, D & Clarke, N 2011, “Engaging for Success: enhancing performance through employee engagement”, Office of Public Sector Information. United Kingdom.
Papworth M, Milne D & Boak G 2009, An exploratory content analysis of situational leadership, Jounal of Management Development Vol 28, no. 7, pp. 593 – 606.
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
