Leadership Style

Effective leadership is contingent on matching a leader’s style to a setting that fits (Northouse, 2007). According to Fiedler’s Contingency Theory, leadership styles are operationalized primarily on two ends of a spectrum, they are characterized as task motivated, or relationship motivated (Northouse, 2007). I believe in the adage that practice makes perfect. In this paper, I will look into an alternative way for leaders to lead when they find themselves situated in an unfavorable situation. In the case of leadership; an administrator, manager, or supervisor should use a reflective mindful praxis to improve their ability to make decisions that will achieve optimal outcomes from the organizations they lead in all situations, especially unfavorable ones.
Fiedler’s research demonstrates, in essence, if you don’t fit the team mold, you are unfit to lead the team. The contingency model asserts that leadership styles can be gauged by the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale. This model posits leadership styles on a spectrum ranging from task motivated, low LPC, or relationship motivated, high LPC. The contingency aspect ties the leadership styles to situational variables of the organization.
The situational variables include leader-member relations, task structure and positional power (Northouse, 2007). Leader-member relations are characterized as good or poor depending on feelings found in the group atmosphere, relationships and trust. Although there is no scale for the task structure, the situational variable in the model, there is a clear definition of the term. The variable is operationalized by high structure and low structure. Position power is characterized by the authority a leader has to deliver the proverbial carrot or the stick, i.e. rewards and punishments (Northouse, 2007).
Fiedler has an understanding of why leaders in the wrong setting are ineffective (Northouse, 2007). The correlation between the leader’s LPC score and the group or organization’s

References: Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K., Yee, J. A., & Higher Education Research Inst., I. A. (2000). How Service Learning Affects Students. Executive Summary. Burchard, M. S., & Swerdzewski, P. (2009). Learning Effectiveness of a Strategic Learning Course. Journal Of College Reading And Learning, 40(1), 14-34. Chun-Yi, S., & Hsiu-Chuan, L. (2011). METACOGNITIVE SKILLS DEVELOPMENT: A WEB-BASED APPROACH IN HIGHER EDUCATION. Turkish Online Journal Of Educational Technology, 10(2), 140-150. Goldman Schuyler, K. (2010). Increasing leadership integrity through mind training and embodied learning. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice And Research, 62(1), 21-38. Hackman, J., & Wageman, R. (2007). Asking the Right Questions About Leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 43-47. Kabat-Zinn (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness. New York: Delta. Kruger, J., Dunning, D.: Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. J. of Personality and Soc. Psychol. 77(6), 1121–1134 (1999) Lang, J.M Mabry, J. (1998). Pedagogical Variations in Service-Learning and Student Outcomes: How Time, Contact, and Reflection Matter. Michigan Journal Of Community Service Learning, 532-47. Ming Ming, C., & Sze Wing, K. (2009). FROM METACOGNITION TO SOCIAL METACOGNITION: SIMILARITIES, DIFFERENCES, AND LEARNING. Journal Of Education Research, 3(4), 321-338. Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership theory and practice. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Roll, I., Aleven, V., McLaren, B