House's Path-Goal Theory vs. Fiedler's Contingency Model
House’s Path-Goal Theory:
- Leaders motivate and guide followers by clarifying goals and removing obstacles.
- Leadership styles include directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented.
- Leadership approach adapts to the needs of followers and task demands.
- Effective in dynamic environments requiring flexibility and employee motivation.
Pros
- Flexible leadership styles to adapt to diverse situations.
- Focuses on motivating and empowering employees.
- Encourages collaboration and participation in decision-making.
- Effective in dynamic and fast-changing environments.
Cons
- Requires leaders to have high emotional intelligence and adaptability.
- Can be challenging to consistently identify and address follower needs.
- May not work well in highly structured or routine tasks.
Fiedler’s Contingency Model
- Leadership effectiveness depends on matching the leader’s style with the situation.
- Leadership styles are task-oriented or relationship-oriented.
- Situational favorableness is determined by leader-member relations, task structure, and position power.
- Assumes leadership style is fixed and not adaptable.
- Best for stable and predictable environments.
Pros
- Clear framework for matching leaders to specific situations.
- Effective in stable, predictable environments.
- Emphasizes the importance of leader-situation alignment.
Cons
- Leadership style is fixed and lacks adaptability.
- Limited applicability in dynamic or rapidly changing environments.
- Overly reliant on predefined criteria for effectiveness.
Which Is Better for a CEO?
If I were a CEO of a company trying to make an important decision, I would choose House's model of leadership because leaders must help their employees to make a company successful. This means emphasizing adaptability, encouraging employees, and being able to address dynamic challenges. CEOs need to motivate employees and develop strategies in various environments. House Theory’s flexibility in leadership styles aligns with these needs, making it more effective than Fiedler’s rigid strategy in a rapidly changing business environment.
Comments
Post a Comment