Week 5

I like the concept of contingency theory, especially the element that Northouse points out. A great leader doesn't have to be perfect in every situation. Put the leader in the right situation and they will excel and if its not working out then relocate.  What makes me wonder though is how many times a person should be moved before its wondered if the fit isn't right because of them I've seen managers shuffled around (from my 5 year at Menards) from department to department and we would question how they're still in a management position. Not to mention just the basic idea of taking someone out a management spot in plumbing and putting them in a management spot in paint seems really counterproductive, unless of course they know something about paint.

I don't know how Tamara will do as president, it all comes down to how she gets along with her student council. Her very high LPC score indicates a strong relationship based leadership. She'll have to quickly start forming relationships to get going on the new policy.

It definitely sounds like Bill is not going to be successful; he has poor leader-member relations, there's supposed to be high structure, but he is power weak. He automatically transfers the blame elsewhere. I find it amazing that he's (hypothetically) been the band director for 15 years. You can't be weak in that position, you're dealing with high school students constantly, band directors are known for having strong relationships with their students because they interact with them the whole length of their student life.

While Mrs. Lee is an manager, for the change the company wants to make Mr. Washington is the best choice. He is relationship strong, perfectly designed for teamwork structure. I definitely think that Mrs. Lee should still have a place in the company though.  No wait, I changed my mind. Mrs. Lee should get it. She has great relationship with the workers and can handle different work goals. Or maybe Mr. Washington, argh! I don't know! Is there really a wrong choice with these two candidates?

I myself am a high LPC, scoring 78 which makes slight sense yet not. I'm not going to do a task poorly just because I don't like someone, but I  much prefer working alongside someone I get along with.

I have a detail issue with the first figure on Path-Goal Theory. The picture shows the area going around the obstacle, but the description is that in this method the obstacle is removed, which is a completely different action from working around it.

I like the concept of Path-Goal even though I feel there are many in management that don't practice it. The idea of the leader adjusting to the situation and the workers is great, there's obviously not one magical leadership style. So does this mean that a leader should change his or her method with each individual subordinate or to the majority of the team's characteristics? Probably to have the best functioning team it would be smart to adjust to each person individually. I think it takes a special kind of person to adjust to others so completely.

Art and Tom don't seem to be paying attention to the problems that are going on with their shift workers. I would recommend switching Art and Tom. Art's style of hands-on, know everything that is going on would work very well for the 2nd shift. Likewise, Tom's friendly personality would help break up the monotony of the 1st shift.

I scored +/- 1 of the common scores for all 4 styles in the Path-Goal Questionnaire. So I apparently I don't have one set style, I'm not horrible but I'm not great. Right?