Leadership: Leader Motivation and Contingency

A leader needs to behave proactively without losing the trust of his employees as employee hiring as well as retention of the talented ones is a serious strategic decision. Leaders specific personality traits have to be brought into effect for dealing with contingency situations that might sometimes get the brands image and stakeholders trust in jeopardy. No one size could be considered a fit for all situations and a contingency one (Vidal et al., 2017). This paper aims to scrutinize two leaders and their motivational and contingency leadership styles based on contingency theory.

Mary Barra, GM CEO

Motivational Style and Contingency Leadership

The motivational style of Mary Barra could be attributed to transformational leadership in which she allowed the employees to express their viewpoints. After listening to them, she asked about their values and how they chose them (Bin Sattar, n.d.). This led her to understand what employee perceptions could be matched with her workplace and organizational culture conducive to their productivity. The employees were motivated to work with her when they could belong to their workplace and knew that they were heard and treasured by their CEO.

Marys feedback-seeking behavior effectively developed trust between the leaders and employees and proactively sought answers to questions that the top management might be unaware of. As the employees were working on their tasks daily, they were of the daily difficulties, which the top management might not be informed of frequently. Mary responded to the situation requirements to make the working environment smoother (Bin Sattar, n.d.). She asked whether they received what they were expecting and also what they thought could improve certain matters. It is one of the employees adaptation processes based on the social exchange theory that gives returns in exchange for feedback, a typical social exchange (Qian et al., 2018). The norm of reciprocity infuses motivation among the employees with a reflection of Marys empowering leadership.

Marys respectful nature and humility led others to follow her unconditionally. She believed trust and motivation are natural by-products of inclusiveness through information-sharing and collaboration. She gave credit to the teams and did not own all the credit, which was a great sign of her polite and humble personality. Trust and motivation were gained through extensive information sharing so that employees behaviors are adjusted for the natural attaining of goals without having to impose them- a crucial element of fair and honest leadership for giving strength to the subordinates (Ngyuen et al., 2020). A culture was created such that a learning organization with the learning of new information each day encouraged the employees to be a part of the process.

How This Leader Fits Into Contingency Leadership Model/Theory

Contingency leadership assumes that a certain leadership style could fit into a specific situation and might not be effective in other circumstances. According to Fiedlers contingency theory, Mary Barras leadership style appears valuable in all situations. It was not only her style that helped her gain control over the ignition switch failure but...…John continued with unnecessary sales targets forced upon the employees; the management did not notice how the employees were fearful. A culture of fear and intimidation was created the John ignored himself. The high-pressure sales culture caused the employees to go under stress and to reach daily sales; they had to take steps without bringing it to the notice of the management or CEO.

The leadership style where employees were hesitant in voicing their concerns and communicating with anyone within the company indicated bad leadership. The ethical code was broken, and no risk detection or contingency plan was observed within the company. The employees illegal behavior went unnoticed, and no time was left to address it and ask them where the issue arose before it was too late.

The hearing at the court made one notion clear that John was not ready to accept that organizational culture was toxic or that he was ignorant of his duties. A leader has to take accountability for himself and his team; instead, he kept pointing fingers at his employees, which was a highly demotivating factor. If Fiedlers theory states that a leadership style needs to be transformed to meet the situations demands, John did not do that. He kept his assertive nature the same when he imposed unrealistic targets upon the employees and stated in court that it was his employees fault (Segun, 2017). He did not change his leadership style to address the issues or handle the delegation or operation concerns with situational…