The model of leadership that is described in the story about Andes survivors raises numerous controversies. Specifically, the propriety of corpse consummation, as well as unequal distribution of supplies between the members of the expedition, is often questioned.
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
The modern leadership theories can verify the survivors’ actions, according to particular standards. Thus, the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory, which promotes straight collaboration between supervisors and their subordinates, implies supports the type of partnership that is described in the case. Due to the reading, the leading forces of the expedition viewed a supplies partitioning as the most efficient solution (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012). Thus, the typical hierarchical model of relations is represented by the leadership type. In fact, the decision corresponds to the fundamental principles of responsibility loads, which are underlined by the LMX theory.
The guiding principles that stipulate normative decision-making, in contrast, offer a different approach that could be adopted by the members of Andes expedition. According to the standard’s regulations, normative leadership is stipulated by the concepts of habit and tradition (Klöckner, & Matthies, 2004). In other words, it is acknowledged that a real leader has to be attentive to his subordinates’ needs and opinions. Moreover, all decisions that are regularly made by leaders have to correspond to the traditional understanding of morality and good sense. Therefore, the idea of eating the deceased participants is initially unacceptable for the proponents of the theory. Instead, the advocates of this theory would recommend the leader of the expedition to share the available resources that could be found on the crashes of the plain between all members. Besides, it could be suggested to split into small groups and to follow all the possible routes so that to enhance the chances of survival.
The situational leadership theory partly supports the decision that was taken by the members. Since this doctrine promotes the principle of circumstantial decision-making, it claims that any solution can be justified as long as it complies with the final success. Thus, the result-oriented theory backs up the idea of unequal distribution, for it is considered to be the only practical solution. Nevertheless, the doctrine endorses a highly-democratic approach to leadership. Therefore, the supervisors must let the members of the expedition express their views concerning the decision. Only after this act, the solution could be approved.
The contingency theory, which targets the personal qualities of a leader, rebuts the idea of directed support that was adopted by the survivors. Due to this doctrine, an effective leader is a person who can stand out in any crowd. Such an individual should possess strong moral persuasions. Moreover, the leader must be vigorous, patient, and easily integrated into any community. Thus, such model claims that an actual supervisor can endure more than people, who follow his commands and directions. Consequently, the decision that was taken by a team of survivors was supposed to have a reverse character. The leaders of the expedition had to allocate the biggest part of the available resources for their subordinates since weaker members of the group had to be well-supplied.
Finally, the path-goal theory of leadership advocates the idea of a community’s domination. Thus, the doctrine claims that the leaders’ actions must be society-driven and should bring the results that can be beneficial for the subordinates. Since the idea of resources distribution was supported by the members of the expedition group, the theory approves the idea.
Hughes, R., Ginnett, R., & Curphy, G. (2012). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience. Irwin: McGraw-Hill.
100% original paper
on any topic
done in as little as
Klöckner, C., & Matthies, E. (2004). How habits interfere with norm-directed behavior: A normative decision-making model for travel mode choice. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(3), 319-327.