I need more information to create a meaningful title. "Discussion" alone is too vague.

Fiedler's Contingency Theory

The overarching claim of Fiedler's contingency theory is that leadership is defined more directly by the situation or context into which a leader is thrust than by the nature of the leader himself. The basic premise is that leaders will define themselves in low-stress and high-stress situations. Ideally, according to Fiedler, a leader will be selected whose traits are compatible with the organization and its personnel or failing that, conditions within the organization may be altered in order to accommodate strengths evidenced by the leader in question.

This is a decidedly provocative model because it represents a departure from leadership theories that stake leadership quality on the individual. Before the contingency theory, leadership has generally been thought of as a personality trait. With Fiedler, this idea is rejected in favor of the notion that any individual can function as an effective leader when placed in a the optimal position.

The theory fits comfortably into a discussion concerning nature vs. nature because it defies the assumption that leadership is established by the latter. Instead, Fielder believes that nurture, or the creation of accommodating conditions with which to facilitate leadership success, is the idea way for an organization to yield effective leadership.

I am inclined to disagree with this view, which dismisses the defining impact which certain personality traits can bear on leadership qualifications. I would, to this point, echo a critique offered in the Northhouse (2013) text. Here, one major "criticism of contingency theory is that it fails to explain adequately what organizations should do when there is a mismatch between the leader and the situation in the workplace. Because it is a personality theory, contingency theory does not advocate teaching leaders how to adapt their styles to various situations as a means to improve leadership in an organization." (Northouse p. 129)

The wealth of evidence given to support Fiedler's Contingency Theory does not significantly alter my view that the model is inherently flawed. In fact, this may well be the ideal demonstration of a theory which succeeds far better in the experimental context than in the real-world. As the critique provided by Northouse indicates, implementation of this model in an actual organizational setting can be extremely cumbersome and rife with obstacles. Noth the least among them is the personnel at any given organization. The risks of resistance and turnover may be higher in a contingency leadership context based on the degree of effort, resource and reform dedicated to creating a company which is compatible with the leader in question. One is inclined to wonder why this would ever be preferable to the selection of a leader for whom no change is required but who is inherently capable of demonstrating flexibility, versatility and dynamism. Indeed, these are traits that we commonly associate with leadership based on the effectiveness typically demonstrated thereby.