PSYCH 668 Week 3 Contingency and Transformational Leadership Example

Leading the Switch to Voice-Directed Picking: Contingency Models, Transformational Leadership and Two Very Different Shifts

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

PSYCH/668: Organizational Development, Leadership, and Management

Week 3 Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The distributor, its people and the rollout are composites written for a model paper; theories and research findings come from the sources listed.

In two months, our warehouse will replace paper pick lists and handheld scanners with voice-directed picking, in which pickers wear headsets that call out each location and item, and they confirm each step aloud. The system should raise accuracy and speed. It will also change every picker's job overnight, and after two years of rapid change, people are tired. This paper asks what contingency and transformational models say about leading this rollout.

Two Different Situations

Day shift has about ninety pickers, more than half hired within the past year, with high turnover and uneven skills. Night shift has about forty pickers, most with five or more years at the company, led informally by Teresa, a lead with no formal authority but strong loyalty. The same change will land very differently on these groups, which is exactly the problem contingency models address.

Situational Leadership and Its Evidence

Situational leadership theory recommends adjusting direction and support to followers' readiness: high direction for those low in ability and willingness, a combination of direction and support as readiness grows and delegation for those who are able and willing.

Vecchio (1987) tested these prescriptions with more than three hundred high school teachers and their principals. Support appeared mainly for teachers rated low in readiness, for whom more structuring by the principal was associated with better performance and satisfaction. For moderately and highly ready teachers, the theory's predictions were not confirmed. Vecchio concluded that the model may be most useful for newly hired or less experienced employees.

That finding is useful here. Day shift's new hires are where the evidence supports clear, step-by-step direction during the rollout. For night shift veterans, the theory's advice to delegate has weaker support, so other models should guide the plan.

Path-Goal Theory

House (1996) reformulated path-goal theory, arguing that leaders are effective when their behavior complements what is missing from followers' work environment and abilities, compensating for deficiencies in ways that support satisfaction and performance. He described several classes of leader behavior, including clarifying paths to goals, supporting followers, facilitating work by removing obstacles, encouraging achievement, facilitating interaction within the group and representing the group to others in the organization.

Applied to our rollout, path-goal theory recommends different behaviors for each shift. New hires lack knowledge of the job and the system, so clarifying behavior matters most: demonstrations, practice sessions and clear performance expectations for the first weeks. Veterans already know the work; what they lack is a voice in how the change affects them and protection from problems such as headset fit or system errors, so representation and obstacle removal matter more.

Transformational and Transactional Leadership

Bass (1990) described transactional leadership as an exchange in which leaders clarify what followers must do and reward compliance, or intervene when things go wrong. Transformational leadership, by contrast, broadens and elevates followers' interests, builds awareness and acceptance of the group's purpose and moves people to look beyond their own self-interest. Bass identified four components: charisma, which earns respect and trust; inspiration, which communicates high expectations and purpose; intellectual stimulation, which encourages new ways of solving problems; and individualized consideration, which gives each person personal attention. Bass argued that these behaviors can be developed through training.

Judge and Piccolo (2004) meta-analyzed research on transformational and transactional leadership. Transformational leadership had the strongest overall link to outcomes, including how satisfied and motivated followers felt and how effective they rated the leader. Contingent reward, the heart of the transactional exchange, came close behind and sometimes matched transformational leadership when the outcome was performance. Laissez-faire leadership, avoiding leadership altogether, was negatively related to most outcomes.

The research does not ask leaders to choose between inspiring people and rewarding them; it shows that both work.

What Greg Has Done So Far

Through the last two years, Greg relied mostly on structure and an avoidance of the human side of change, which comes close to laissez-faire on the emotional dimension. The previous rollout of route software was announced by memo. According to Judge and Piccolo's findings, that pattern is the least effective of all.

A Plan for the Rollout

First, inspiration and purpose. Greg should explain the change in person on each shift, including night shift, telling people why it matters: fewer picking errors that lead to angry customers and returned loads and an easier way to learn the job for new hires. He should be candid about what will be hard.

Second, intellectual stimulation and representation for veterans. Teresa and two night-shift veterans should test the system before rollout and recommend adjustments, such as voice speed and break timing. Their input addresses what path-goal theory says veterans lack and treats them as experts.

Third, clarity for new hires. Day shift leads should run short training sessions, pair new hires with experienced pickers and set clear, gradually rising accuracy and speed targets.

Fourth, contingent reward. Leads should recognize accuracy improvements publicly each week, and the company should share any savings through a small team bonus once targets are met.

Changing the Situation Instead

Contingency research has a mixed record. Some models assume leaders can change their style for each situation, while others suggest it is easier to change the situation or assign the right leader. That second idea fits our plan: rather than asking Greg to become transformational overnight, we can place Teresa and capable day leads where their strengths matter most while Greg focuses on the purpose message he can deliver well.

Risks in the Plan

None of this is guaranteed. Inviting veterans to test the system creates expectations; if their recommendations are ignored, the gesture will deepen distrust rather than build it, so Greg must commit in advance to telling the veterans which ideas made it into the rollout and what kept the rest out. A team bonus can feel insulting if it is small compared with the disruption, and it can create resentment if night shift meets targets and day shift does not. Finally, transformational messages from a leader who has not shown consideration before may be heard as spin. Greg's credibility will depend less on what he says at the meetings than on whether he returns a month later to hear what went wrong.

Measuring Whether It Worked

We will track picking accuracy and speed on each shift weekly, turnover during the three months after rollout and responses to a short pulse survey asking whether people understood the reasons for the change and felt their concerns were heard. Comparing the two shifts on these measures will show whether the tailored approach helped each group it was designed for, and where it fell short.

Conclusion

Contingency models suggest that day and night shifts need different leadership during the rollout, with direction and clarity for new hires and voice and obstacle removal for veterans. Transformational and transactional research suggests that a clear purpose, genuine involvement and recognition of progress will each help. Together they offer a better plan than another memo.

References

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S

House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755

Vecchio, R. P. (1987). Situational leadership theory: An examination of a prescriptive theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), 444-451. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.3.444