Leadership Style Essay

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 performance depended (or was contingent) on the degree to which the leadership situation was â€Å"favorable†(Fiedler, 1995). A leader in an uncomfortable and unfitting situation experiences stress and anxiety (Northouse, 2007). A leader under stress is likely to exhibit inappropriate behaviors and revert to less mature ways of coping that were learned in early development (Northouse, 2007). The leader’s less appropriate behaviors and decisions result in negative work outcomes (Northouse, 2007). This may be true in most situations; however, with our proposed alternative model, the M Model (M2), leaders can be taught how to transform their leadership style so that it transforms poor situations into good situations with successful outcomes. Hackman and Wagemann (2007) believe it is essential that we understand how to help leaders learn. Leaders can become even more effective if they are able to learn from their experience, both successes and failures without assigning cause to something or someone out of their control (Hackman and Wagemann, 2007). The M2 posits a leader learning strategy grounded in metacognition and mindfulness. Cognitive psychologists use the term metacognition to describe our ability to assess our own skills, knowledge, or learning (Lang, 2012). Chew describes metacognition as a person’s awareness of his or her own level of knowledge and thought processes (Lang, 2012). As stated by Kruger and Dunning, â€Å"those with limited knowledge in a domain suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach mistaken conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it† (Krugger, Dunning, 1999). The M2 way is to practice metacognition as it relates to leadership skills and behaviors. M2 practitioners develop a practical understanding of their leadership abilities in various settings and they use their metacognitive awareness to improve their leadership skills in various situations. The other half of the M2 way is for the leader to be fully aware of their actions and the likely outcomes. This strategy is met by improving one’s mindfulness. Put simply, mindfulness practice is being aware of what is, what is happening now in the present moment (Bing, 2012). Goldman (2010) uses a definition of mindfulness from Rinchen in 2001. Rinchen’s definition of mindfulness situated in the leadership context is: â€Å"ridding ourselves of negative mental states and fostering and developing constructive ones† (Goldman, 2010). Mindfulness has shown to be effective in improving one’s performance in stressful situations (Kabat-Zinn, 1990). Therefore, the M2 strategy is to teach the leader to be aware of their actions in the moment and this is accomplished vis a vis a practice of mindfulness. We postulate this mindful awareness will allow the M2 leader to make better choices in whatever situation they find themselves in. The keystone of the M Model (M2) is reflective leadership praxis. Praxis is the practice of an art or craft, such as leading (Bing Dictionary, 2012). Through reflection leaders analyze various leadership concepts, evaluate their experiences, and develop their personal leadership theory (Astin, 2000). Reflection provides leaders with the opportunity to examine and question and develop beliefs and values. It involves observation, questioning, and putting facts, ideas, and experiences together to construct new meaning and wisdom (UNK). Yukl (2008) finds that effective leaders are flexible and adaptive. We expect the M2 method combining metacognition, mindfulness and reflective practice will develop effective leaders. The proper place to begin is often at the beginning. The M2 solution posits that the leader must not only know themselves, but also their organization. With that knowledge of themselves and their organization applied to the contingency theory we can propose a solution to Fiedler’s catch 22 that a leader in a poor situation is doomed. The M2 solution begins at the point when a leader finds herself in a poor situation. The M2 leader knows her strengths, LPC score and other relevant situational and organizational information. She is taught to assess the organization thoroughly based on the situational variables. The assessment leads to the realization she is in the wrong situation and with M2 skills this discovery is made sooner than later. Knowing she is in the wrong situation the leader can take action to alleviate the stress that, Fiedler suggested, leads to poor decision making. Upon realizing she is in the poor and stressed situation the M2 leader will apply her reflective leadership practices for optimal outcomes. This is a set of practices that include development of the weekly or daily habit of reflecting upon actions taken and the results of those actions. The reflection will include a commitment to ongoing and summative written reflection and regular discussion with their M2 coach (Mabry, 1998). This reflection will lead the M2 leader to be more aware of her actions in the moment. This awareness will allow for a clearer understanding of a predictable result. Awareness in the moment will allow the M2 leader to choose a more appropriate action for the situation. This fits with the situational approached developed by Hersey and Blanchard. The premise of situational leadership is that an effective leader will be flexible and adapt to the situation (Northouse, 2007). The M2 hypothesizes that reflective praxis and mindful action will lead to improved organizational outcomes. Although Fiedler’s contingency theory has not always been collaborated by other research, it works. Our preliminary analysis predicts that the reflective leadership praxis of M2 will enhance the skills of the leader that finds herself in a favorable or unfavorable situation. The M2 practitioner in an unfavorable situation will not suffer the consequences of stress related poor decision-making. The M2 practitioner will be able to make choices that result in optimal outcomes not only for the organization but also for the people she leads.