According to Fiedler's contingency model of leadership, a leader's performance depends on their own styles and how much control and influence they have over the circumstance.
<h3>What is Fiedler's theory of contingent leadership?</h3>
According to Fiedler's Contingency Theory, a leader's leadership style needs to be appropriate for the circumstances in order to be effective. You can use this model to determine your own leadership style, evaluate the situation that calls for leadership, and assess whether you are the best candidate.
Consider a basketball team as a first example of using Fiedler's model, as they have a disciplined work, a low amount of power, and (in theory) good leader-member connections. Instead of a relationship-focused coach giving everyone an equal voice in this situation, you would want a task-oriented coach to define the game strategy.
<h3>What is suggested by Fielder's theory?</h3>
Most notably, Fiedler's theory contends that a leader's personality is not the sole factor in determining how effective they are. Instead, this situational theory contends that when people are in settings that support their particular leadership philosophies, they develop into supportive leaders.
Learn more about Fiedler's Contingency Theory: brainly.com/question/20709656
#SPJ1
Answer:
Scottdale Mark Brainliest
Explanation:
The Temple of Confucius is a temple complex in Beijing dedicated to the great philosopher Confucius.
When the Mongols conquered China, they only after a considerable time realized that it would be good for Chinese officials to be on their side. And then they presented to their new capital the Temple of Confucius, the predecessor of the present. The church acquired its present appearance only in 1906, when the doomed Qing dynasty decided to raise the authority of the cult of Confucius to oppose its influence of Christianity. The main project was larger than before, the sacrificial hall, completed only in 1916, after the fall of the dynasty. I hope it helps you!!!
The research must pose no more than minimal risk.
