Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Hi, I am looking for someone to write an article on comparison of the strengths and limitations of two approaches to theorizing leadership Paper must be at least 3000 words. Please, no plagiarized wor
Hi, I am looking for someone to write an article on comparison of the strengths and limitations of two approaches to theorizing leadership Paper must be at least 3000 words. Please, no plagiarized work! The contingency theory has been presented by Fred Fiedler. Fred Fiedler was born in 1992 and he was recognized as one of the leading researchers in the industrial and organizational psychology of the 20th century (Righthealth). The transformational theory has been presented by James MacGregor who is an American historian and Political and born in 1918 AD and recognized as a Pulitzer Prize-winning Presidential biographer (S9.com).
Both the contingency theory and transformation theory of leadership is considered very significant to study the effectiveness of leaders in the organizational contexts. When Fiedler presented his theory of contingency, most of the work has been done on the traits and behaviors of the leaders to enhance the group performance. On the other hand, transformation theory of Bass highlighted the ways through which the leaders would be more influential and impact their followers. The contingency theory argues that effectiveness of leaders is increased when the traits and behaviors of leaders best match the situation whereas, the transformational theory argues that leaders can influence the followers if they convey the individuals the importance of tasks, get their focus on organizational goals rather than their personal interests and stimulate their high-order goals. The two opposite approaches of the two theories and the importance of both of the theories in the organizational contexts are the two major reasons because of which I selected these two approaches of the two theories and the importance of both of the theories in the organizational contexts are the two major reasons because of which I selected these two approaches for critical analysis.
