I posted a while ago about a few things I'd done that day, and have noticed that it's getting more views than other posts, and I'm not entirely sure why, but I'm guessing it may be because I mentioned an essay I was writing: Describe one contingency theory of leadership and discuss how this theory can be applied by a university lecturer to lead the students' learning process.

On the off chance people were coming here looking for that essay, I've decided to post it here. It's about 800 words long.

Describe one contingency theory of leadership and discuss how this theory can be applied by a university lecturer to lead the students learning process

Although a university lecturer may not immediately seem to be a leader, lecturers do occupy a role which involves interaction with students who allow the lecturers to non-coercively influence them towards the achievement of certain objectives. This is one way of defining leadership, but also shows how students who do not wish to learn simply stop allowing themselves to be influenced. Fiedler’s (1967) contingency theory, also called the Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) Model, explains how a leader’s preferred style and other contingency factors interact to influence group performance, and can be applied to a lecturer to examine ways in which they can lead the learning process.

Fiedler believes the most appropriate leader behaviour is the one that leads to high group productivity (unlike many other theories which also include follower satisfaction as an important factor in measuring leader effectiveness). He says that productivity is a product of two factors: the leader’s behavioural style, and contingent contextual circumstances.

The leader’s behavioural style is fixed and is assessed by means of a psychological scale based around his orientation to the co-worker he was least able to work successfully with in the past. A low LPC score indicates a task-orientated leader, while a high LPC score indicates a relationship-orientated leader.

There are three key contingent circumstances: Leader-member relations (the quality of the relationship between leader and followers), task structure (how well defined or routine the task is), and leader position power (the amount of formal authority given to the leader by his position in the organisation).

Different combinations of circumstances affect the favourableness of the situation, that is how easy it is for the leader to influence his followers, and each set of circumstances has a leadership style that is most appropriate. As he believed leadership style to be fixed, Fiedler ruled out changing leader behaviour to suit the situation and instead suggested changing the situation to suit the leader.

In the context of a university lecturer, position power is normally strong: lecturers are the source of expert knowledge on the subject, responsible for planning the delivery and sometimes content of a module, they are the first point of contact regarding their modules, and are often responsible for marking student’s work.

Task structure is more varied, as it depends on the subject being studied: science and engineering based degrees can be easier to break into structured parts than social science degrees where there are a larger number of interrelated topics and competing theories. In general however, we can say task structure is low, because study is guided by the lecturer who selects relevant material to cover whereas otherwise what to study is ambiguous, and also, because as they are part of the learning process, coursework or seminar tasks set by the lecturer are not routine as often the problems set are new to students.

Leader-member relations are the most varied of all, depending on the individual lecturer and students. There will be a full range of relations, from good to bad.

To summarise the resulting description of the context a university lecturer works in, position power is strong, task structure is low, and leader member relations vary. Fiedler’s model suggests that for Strong, Low, Good circumstances and Strong, Low, Bad circumstances a task-orientated style is best.

However, as Fiedler’s theory states leadership styles are fixed, relationship-orientated lecturers will not get high performance unless they modify the situation to suit their style.

To adapt the situation to their style, relationship-orientated lecturers can take different actions depending on which circumstance they find themselves in. For situations where there is Strong position power, Low task structure, and Good leader-member relations, lecturers can weaken their position power by sharing decisions with their students, perhaps by giving students input into what order they will cover topics or how fast they cover material.

For situations where there is Strong position power, Low task structure, and Bad leader-member relations, lecturers can attempt to improve leader-member relations by increasing the opportunities for informal contact such as extra office hours and offering help beyond what is expected (but within university regulations). Alternatively, lecturers can increase the task structure of the situation by providing clear frameworks to aid study, such as following a core textbook or provided suggested readings to guide students, or providing detailed exam preparation in order to give less ambiguous criteria for success.

In conclusion, using Fiedler’s LPC model, the contextual circumstances can be described as having strong position power, low task structure, and either good or bad leader-member relations. Whilst this suits task-orientated lecturers, relationship-orientated lecturers will have to modify the situation to achieve the best results. Depending on the circumstances, they can weaken their position power, increase the task structure, or improve their relationships, and by doing so create conditions where their style of leadership works best.