Selecting a manager for performance review position using contingency theory

Managerial Leadership

Identification of the problem

The company has decided to create an intermediate position in the company, somewhere between the management team and the employees. In this new position, the person that will be occupying it will report directly to the owners and will have a free hand conducting performance reviews for the managers involved in the respective system.

The main issue in discussion here is whether to choose between two of the company's employees, Mrs. Lee or Mr. Washington, who have both applied for this position. This is a serious issue, as it is most likely that the future performance of the company and the way this system is likely to work in the future will depend on the person's abilities to cope with the challenge, to conduct performance reviews and, at the same time, report to the owners.

Management Behavior

The new position has become a necessity because the management of the company has previously taken an authoritarian stand on most issues and the owners o would like it to be more team-work oriented.

In this sense, the new system that will be implemented will require someone to observe the way it functions, to note if the management team is coping with the changes and report directly to the owners as to how everything is evolving, as well as to edit performance reports for the team.

3. Analysis of problems

In order to decide which of the employees is most fit and able to perform well in the new position, we will be using the contingency theory. In this sense, we will be evaluating each of the candidate's Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) Measure and decide upon the scores obtained in each case, which of them is most suited for this particular position. It is fundamental to decide whether this position requires a task-oriented person, a socio-independent leader or a leader motivated by relationships.

In order to decide upon the characteristics of the position, we need to read what the requirements are and what the persons will be meant to perform there. As such, he or she will be required to "report directly to the owners" and to "conduct performance reviews of all managers involved in the new system." It seems quite clear to me that this is a position that requires strict tasks and that a task-oriented person is most suited for the job.

4. Recommendations for managerial action

If we look at the two scores obtained by the two candidates, we will be able to decide to which category each belongs to and what are the general characteristics of each. Mrs. Lee has obtained 52, which makes her a low LPC and highly task motivated. The most important thing for her is to get the job done and it is mentioned that her priority are reaching short- term and long- term goals. However, to her advantage, she is also friendly which, even if she has a low LPC, means that she may get along with the employees.

On the other hand, Mr. Washington has obtained 69 and thus has a high LPC. This recommends him as highly motivated by relationships. Is this a position that would need a person motivated by relationships? In my opinion, not necessarily. In the previous point, I have addressed the position requirements and these referred to reporting to owners and conducting performance reports.

5. Selection of individual

As such, it is my opinion that Mrs. Lee would be the proper choice in this situation. Indeed, she is task-oriented and that would be enough to recommend her as a person who will simply get the jobs done. Reporting and conducting performance reviews can both be classified as tasks and do not necessarily require a great deal of human interaction.

Again, I need to emphasize the fact that, even if it seems that the position should require somebody who is motivated by relationships, the main objective of such a position and its main goal is to get the observing, reporting and reviewing tasks done, which is why Mrs. Lee would make an excellent choice.

Achievement-oriented style: 29

According to these results, we may interpret that you have obtained an average score for the directive style (where the common score is 23), a low score for supportive style (below 23), an average score for participative style (higher than 16) and a high score for achievement- oriented style (29, higher than 24).

According to the scores obtained, you are a leader that is more achievement- oriented than other leaders, less supportive than other leaders and similar to other leaders in terms of the directive and participative styles.

Because you have obtained such a high score for the achievement- oriented leadership style, it seems quite clear that you would be a highly effective and efficient leader in situations where you set standards, generally high standards, and the employees must abide by them. It is quite important, in these situations, to ensure that the employees feel encouraged by the challenges they face and confident in their abilities, as it may happen that high standards are sometimes impossible to meet.

In order to check these with the actual questions, I had a look at the questions that make up this score. These are questions 6, 10, 13, 16 and 19. They refer to letting the employees know what is expected of them or setting goals. In all of these questions you have scored 5 on two separate occasions, which means often, twice 6 and one time 7. This shows that you usually perform all these actions and the final results clearly points out that you are achievement- oriented.

On the other hand, because you are less supportive than other leaders, you will probably prove less effective in circumstances that are "structured and unchallenging," that is, in situations where you need to prove supportiveness.

The average scores that have shown you as an average directive and participative leader mean that, when it comes to taking charge and exercising control, you would do moderately well.