In this GM502 Unit 5 contingency model application, Fiedler's three situational variables are rated for two news cycles before one editor's LPC score and outcomes are placed against them. Searches like "gm 502 unit 5 assignment example", "gm502 unit 5 sample" and "gm502 unit 5 example" land here.
What a finished GM502 Unit 5 contingency model application looks like
A situational rating table and a figure reproducing Fiedler's eight octants anchor roughly six pages in APA format. The introduction describes the metro desk in operational terms: [nine] reporters, a union contract that limits the editor's hiring and discipline, weekday breaking news and a slower weekend features cycle. Before the editor's style enters, the situation section rates leader-member relations from a short staff poll, task structure from the desk's own assignment practices, and position power from the contract and the managing editor's delegations. Breaking news lands in a moderately favorable octant; features land in an unfavorable one because assignments are loose and relations with two senior writers are strained. Her least preferred coworker score, reported in brackets, marks her as relationship-motivated. The outcomes section compares corrections, missed deadlines and story completion across both cycles.
How a GM502 Unit 5 example is structured
Order is the argument. The situation is assessed in full before the editor is described, because the model's claim is that effectiveness depends on the match, and a paper that starts with the leader tends to rate the situation to suit her. Each variable receives its own subsection with the evidence behind the rating and the thresholds used. The octant placements follow, one for each news cycle. Only then does the LPC result appear, with a paragraph on what the scale is thought to measure and why that interpretation remains contested. The prediction section states what Fiedler's model expects for a relationship-motivated leader in each octant. Outcomes are then set against those predictions, and the fit is partial: breaking-news results support the model, features results do not. A critique section weighs Schriesheim, Tepper and Tetrault's meta-analysis and asks whether the misfit reflects the model or the measurement.
Rating the desk before the editor
Leader-member relations, task structure and position power are each rated on stated evidence, with the editor's style withheld. The paper explains that this sequence guards against rating the situation to flatter a conclusion already reached.
Two news cycles, two octants
Weekday breaking news combines good relations, structured tasks and weak position power; weekend features combine strained relations, loose assignments and the same weak power. The figure marks both placements on Fiedler's grid.
What the LPC score is taken to mean
The editor's score, in brackets, falls in the relationship-motivated range. A paragraph sets out the competing readings of the scale, as a motivational hierarchy or as a measure of cognitive complexity, and adopts one explicitly.
Predictions written down first
The model expects the editor to do well on breaking news and less well on features. Recording both predictions before any figures appear keeps the test clean and visible to the reader.
A partial fit, examined
Breaking-news outcomes match the prediction. Features outcomes do not, since completion held steady despite the unfavorable octant, and the paper weighs whether the senior writers' autonomy explains it better than the model does.
Where marks go in GM502 Unit 5
Contingency applications lose most when the octant is simply announced: leader-member relations, task structure and position power go unrated, so the placement has no evidence behind it. The reversed sequence follows closely: the leader described and praised first, then a situation fitted around her to make the model agree. Many sections reward a prediction set down before outcomes are examined, since that is what separates a test of the model from an illustration of it. Treating the LPC scale as a plain style label, without acknowledging the long dispute about what it measures, costs accuracy. Papers also give ground when outcomes are credited to the leader without asking what the situation contributed. A mismatch between prediction and result, examined rather than hidden, usually earns more than a tidy fit.
Get a GM502 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Name the leader and the setting, then describe the working conditions as plainly as possible: how the relationship with the team stands, how structured the work is, and what formal authority the leader holds. Add the Unit 5 instructions and rubric, and a free first application follows inside 24-48h, built on the contingency model your section assigns.
GM502 Unit 5 questions, answered
Does the application have to use Fiedler, or can it use path-goal or another model?
Many sections leave the choice open within the contingency family, and path-goal theory or the normative decision model can carry the same kind of paper. Fiedler suits settings where the situation varies more than the leader, since the model assumes style is stable. Whatever the choice, the application works the same way: rate the situation on evidence, state the prediction, then test it.
How can leader-member relations be rated without a formal survey?
A short anonymous poll of the team is ideal but not essential. Turnover, grievances, how often people bring problems to the leader early, and whether volunteers appear for extra work all serve as indicators. Your paper should name its evidence and admit where it is thin. A rating supported by three concrete indicators persuades more than a confident label.
What if the outcomes do not match what the model predicts?
Report the mismatch and examine it, which is often the most valuable part of the paper. The miss may reflect a variable the model leaves out, a flawed rating on your part, or a genuine limit of the theory, and the critical literature on contingency models supplies sources for each. Instructors tend to reward that candor over an agreement forced into place.