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.

It's generally accepted that modern life is quite hectic, that we're busy trying to fit as much into our lives as possible. I find that I'm somewhat wasteful with my time, although I'm trying to be more productive, however I get the impression that no matter how productive I become, there will always be more tasks than I have time to do.

Where does that leave spirituality? Quite often there are real and legitimate influences against incorporating spiritual practice into our daily lives, perhaps it's because you work long hours, have no where to practice, have children, or something else. I've always struggled to make time to meditate, for example: I always feel too tired to concentrate in the evenings, and getting up early in the morning is a challenge I've yet to overcome.

That's why I like what people such as Jon Kabat-Zinn say: that spirituality needn't be, and perhaps should never be, restricted to one part of our life, instead it should be something that permeates throughout it.

In short, you can be mindful wherever you are, whatever you are doing. Whatever you happen to be doing, you can use the experience as an object for meditation, whether you practice concentration or mindfulness.

For example, as you walk down the street, not just keeping your head down and walking as fast as you can to get to your destination, but being aware of the street, seeing what's going, hearing it, smelling it.

Essentially, living in the present, all the time, and experiencing our lives in as much depth as is available to us.

Today was the first day of term.

I got up around 9 and phoned my landlord about the broken washing machine and the lack of gas/electric bills (we've been here for 4 months now and no sign of a bill, although there are lots of letters for him from British Gas - we think something is amiss) and he said he'd sort out the washing machine and come around later this evening to pick up the letters.

I then spent the rest of the day writing an essay titled "Describe one contingency theory of leadership and discuss how this theory can be applied by a university lecturer to lead the students’ learning process."

When I came home I separated my kitchen things from the pile in the kitchen sink and washed up.

The landlord never showed up... no surprise there. He's one of the least reliable people I've ever had to deal with, which is made all the more frustrating because he's also taking our money each month!

The Void Within is a domain (www.thevoidwithin.com), a website, and a blog. Specifically, it's the name of my blog about my personal experiences as I attempt to explore my own spirituality.

It includes public articles discussing ideas and experiences I have, and a private journal with shorter more frequent entries about my day to day practice.

My daily practice is recorded in the journal entries, which in turn inspire the longer public articles.

That's pretty simple, but it probably wasn't the answer you were expecting.

The Void Within makes a short, catchy site name (well, I think so) but what does it mean, if anything? I chose it because I think it sums up the general direction of this blog, looking inwards and exploring what we find there, and hopefully understanding it a bit better as a result.

One of the various meanings of "void" is an unknown or something missing, and in this sense it describes a void of knowledge. Knowledge of our spirituality is what's missing.

Our culture seems to prefer to focus on the mind and body, but neglects the spiritual. Perhaps after centuries of God equalling spirituality, now that atheism is the fashion, spirituality has fallen out of favour.

I don't advocate religion over spirituality, or vice versa, (and are they really mutually exclusive anyway?) but believe that to be a rounded individual you must develop all aspects of yourself: mind, body, and soul.

The void within also describes our lack of knowledge about our spirituality, but even if we lack knowledge, we all have a spirit of some kind: something that exists between flesh and blood, hormones and neurons, something that gives us the vital spark of life and links our mind and body.

This is why if people sometimes speak of a spiritual void in their lives, I interpret it as meaning they haven't discovered their own spirituality, or have become distant from it. They are unable to recognise their own spiritual nature, and thus they feel empty inside.

"Void" is a word sometimes used to describe space. Space may seem at first glance totally empty, but is actually full of particles, radiation, and other things floating around. It takes some special equipment to look into the void and begin to understand what you find there.

In science, special equipment may mean telescopes and sensors, but in spirituality, my special equipment is meditation and reflection.

Like space, the further you look into the void within, the further you find you can go. Space is boundless, and I believe that our spirituality is also boundless. If you have the dedication, you can keep on exploring deeper and more subtle aspects of spirituality.

So, in answer to the original question, the void within is our own boundless and hidden spiritual nature. Like space, it is endless and seemingly empty, and we can spend lifetimes exploring its mysteries, but even though we may start knowing nothing, given time we can probe and gain a better understanding of its mysteries.