Leadership and Astro case
Interesting Concept
The contingency theories are interesting to understand. The aspect is based on the duly duty of a leader to guide the directions of an organization. It is particularly noted that a leader ought to maneuver through scenarios to always derive the best for the followers. The different stipulations defined by different contingency theories are also interesting. Fielders theory for instance empowers leaders as the center of control in the entire system (Yukl & Mahsud, 2010). As a result, the leader is at the center of controlling the path towards the achievement of the pre-defined goals. The situational contingency theory eventually sums up the role of a leader. It particularly notes that the followers have different levels of maturity. The leader is thus responsible for determining how to handle a situation, based on the nature of followers but in alignment with the organizational goals.
It is also essential to note that leaders can be classified into either charismatic or transformative. The categories are based on the appeal a leader has on the followers. A charismatic leader as the name suggests possesses attractive skills that include oral propagation of ideas. The followers are thus convinced that the leader means their welfare thus suitable to enhance the attainment of their goals. A transformative leader on the contrary calls for the maturity of the followers (Huang & Gong, 2009). The leader thus appeals for reforms for an ethical drive towards the attainment of the organizational goals. The interesting bit is that both leadership skills are necessary although charismatic leaders seem egocentric. The aspect is based on their intention of doing anything to ensure that they don’t seem like a failure. Transformative leadership on the contrary though appealing is prone to failure. The leader might in this case be frustrated by the reduced moral responsiveness of the audience.
Support for the Concept
Leadership is a duty rather than a privilege. Besides, the leadership roles are better put to test under various circumstances. Contingency theories in this case just aim at sensitizing leaders on their role to cushion their subjects while aiming at the achievement of organizational goals. The basic element that needs to feature in this case is the maturity of the leader. As fielder theory holds, the leader is responsible for either the success or failure of a system (Chen & Tjosvold, 2006). A transformative leader in such a case requires that the followers prefer the organizational goals against their interests. The primary attribute of transformational leaders is thus they bear organization goals at heart. The path-goal theory on the other hand calls for a determination of the process including allocation of resources to ensure that the organizational goals are achieved. As is the case for transformative leaders calling for the maturity of followers, the situational theory asserts the verge. At any point, however, the leaders are prone to giving up on sensitizing the followers thus failure of the entire system. A charismatic leader on the contrary needs higher levels of maturity since they are the main determinants of the fate of an organization.
The Burton case particularly illustrates charismatic leadership. His appeal gives rise to an organization that aims at reducing the cost incurred by travelers. Besides he aims to harness the finest skills into the organization. Despite the charismatic skills Burton fails to fully engage his followers since he provides a narrower decision-making platform. He further fails to engage the views of the customers that would be essential in formulating his decisions. As a result, the organization’s long-term goals fail despite short-term success.