| Course | GM502 Leadership Theory and Practice I |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Contingency model application |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GM502 Unit 5
Same Editor, Two Octants: A Unit 5 Contingency Model Application at a Newspaper Metro Desk
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GM502: Leadership Theory and Practice I
Unit 5 Contingency Model Application
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The newspaper, its metro desk, the editor and every figure are composite and illustrative; the model and studies cited are real.
The Metro Desk
The metro desk of a regional daily newspaper covers a county of about 600,000 people. Its editor supervises nine reporters, two of whom also edit copy. A newsroom union contract governs hiring, discipline and overtime, so the editor cannot hire or fire reporters on her own, and any discipline goes through a grievance process involving the managing editor. The desk works on two rhythms. From Monday to Friday it covers breaking news: fires, crashes, court rulings, council votes and police activity, filed for the website within an hour and updated through the day. On weekends it produces long features, typically four or five stories of 1,500 words or more that take a week or two to report.
Rating the Situation First
Fred Fiedler argued that no style works everywhere: results come from fitting what motivates a leader to how much control the setting hands her. He measured how much control a situation gives a leader with three variables, weighted most to least: how well the leader and the group get along, whether the task follows a known routine, and what formal authority the post carries. Their combinations form eight octants, from most favorable to least (Fiedler, 1967).
Leader-member relations. A short anonymous poll of the nine reporters asked how much they trusted and respected the editor. Seven of nine rated the relationship good or very good, and none rated it poor. I rate leader-member relations as good for both rhythms.
Task structure. For breaking news, the desk follows a well-defined routine: confirm with two sources, file a short version within the hour, update with a set checklist, notify the web producer. Goals are clear, the path is known and success is easy to verify. Task structure is high. For weekend features, there is no single correct story, the reporting path varies and quality is a judgment call. Task structure is low.
Position power. The union contract and the managing editor's control of discipline leave the editor little formal power to reward or punish. She can assign stories and approve overtime within a budget, but not much more. Position power is weak for both rhythms.
The result places the two rhythms in different octants. Breaking news, with good relations, high structure and weak power, falls in Octant II, a highly favorable situation. Weekend features, with good relations, low structure and weak power, fall in Octant IV, a moderately favorable one.
The editor did not change between Friday and Saturday, but her situation did, moving from Fiedler's second octant to his fourth when the work stopped having a known path.
The Editor's Orientation
Only after rating the situation did I look at the editor. Fiedler's instrument asks a leader to think of the person she has found hardest to work with and rate that person on a set of opposite adjectives. A low total, a harsh picture of that coworker, marks a leader whose satisfaction comes from getting the task done; a higher total marks one who values the relationship even with a difficult colleague. The editor agreed to complete the scale, and her score fell in the low range, indicating a task-motivated orientation. Her reporters' descriptions fit: she is quick, specific about what she needs and focused on deadlines.
The Prediction
The model predicts that task-motivated leaders perform best in highly favorable and highly unfavorable situations, and relationship-motivated leaders perform best in moderately favorable ones (Fiedler, 1967). For this editor, the prediction is clear: she should do well on breaking news, in Octant II, and less well on weekend features, in Octant IV.
Do Her Results Follow the Prediction?
On breaking news, the desk performs strongly. Over the past year it was first to publish on 71 percent of major county stories, compared with the local television station's website, and corrections on breaking stories ran at about one per hundred. Reporters describe the weekday desk as tense but well run.
On weekend features, results are weaker. The features drew less reader engagement than the paper's average, and two reporters have asked to move to other desks, citing frustration with the editor's close direction of feature reporting. One reporter said she "edits a feature like a fire story," asking for status updates twice a day on stories that needed a week of open-ended reporting.
The pattern follows the model's prediction. The same task-motivated style that fits a structured, favorable situation strains in a moderately favorable one where the work needs latitude.
How Much Weight Should the Model Bear?
Fiedler's model has been tested many times, with mixed results. A meta-analysis found that the model's predictions were generally supported in laboratory studies but less consistently in field studies, and that some octants received much weaker support than others (Peters et al., 1985). An earlier review reached a similar conclusion, finding the model more supported than chance but with considerable variation (Strube & Garcia, 1981). The least preferred coworker scale has also been criticized for what exactly it measures. So the match between prediction and results at the metro desk is consistent with the model, but one case cannot confirm it, and other explanations are possible: feature writing may simply be harder to manage for any editor.
Implications
Fiedler argued that changing the situation is easier than changing a leader's orientation. Applied here, the newspaper has two options. It could move features to a different editor with a relationship-motivated orientation, or it could add structure to the features process, for example by agreeing a reporting plan with milestones at the start of each feature, which would raise task structure and move features toward a more favorable octant. The second option keeps an editor whose reporters respect her and gives her a situation that suits her style.
Conclusion
Rated before the editor entered the analysis, the metro desk's two rhythms fall in different octants of Fiedler's model: breaking news in a highly favorable situation, weekend features in a moderately favorable one. The editor's task-motivated orientation predicts strong results on breaking news and weaker results on features, and that is what the desk's record shows. The model's mixed evidence limits what one case can prove, but its central idea, that the same leader can fit one situation and not another, fits this desk well.
References
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. McGraw-Hill.
Peters, L. H., Hartke, D. D., & Pohlmann, J. T. (1985). Fiedler's contingency theory of leadership: An application of the meta-analysis procedures of Schmidt and Hunter. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 274-285. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.2.274
Strube, M. J., & Garcia, J. E. (1981). A meta-analytic investigation of Fiedler's contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Psychological Bulletin, 90(2), 307-321. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.90.2.307
What the GM502 Unit 5 assignment asks for
Unit 5 of GM502 asks you to apply a contingency model to a real or composite leader. The strongest applications rate the situation first, before considering the leader, so the leader's reputation cannot influence the ratings. Describe the unit and its work in operational terms. Rate each situational variable with evidence: a poll or other indicators for relations, the actual routines for task structure and the formal authority for position power. Place the situation, or situations if the work has more than one rhythm, in the model's octants. Only then measure or describe the leader's orientation and state the model's prediction. Compare the prediction with outcomes the unit tracks. Characterize the model's evidence record so the reader knows how much one case can show. Close with implications, keeping in mind that the model favors changing situations over changing leaders. Expect about six pages with a rating table and a figure of the octants, in APA 7.
How this GM502 Unit 5 example is built
The application describes the metro desk's nine reporters, the union contract and its two rhythms, weekday breaking news and weekend features. The rating section draws on Fiedler's three variables: a poll in which seven of nine reporters rated relations good, a two-source confirmation routine giving breaking news high structure, open-ended features with low structure and weak power under the contract. The highlighted sentence states that the editor's octant changed between Friday and Saturday. Her low score on the least preferred coworker scale follows, with the prediction. The desk was first on 71 percent of major county stories, while features drew lower engagement and two reporters asked to move. Peters, Hartke and Pohlmann and Strube and Garcia show mixed support for the model. Implications favor adding milestones to feature reporting over replacing the editor.
Where the points sit in the GM502 Unit 5 rubric
The GM502 rubric for this application rewards a clean test of the model. Instructors check that situational variables are rated with evidence and before the leader's orientation is considered, since rating them afterward invites circular reasoning. Placing work in the correct octant carries significant weight, and identifying two rhythms with different octants shows close attention to the unit. The leader's orientation should be measured or carefully described, and the prediction stated explicitly. Comparing the prediction with tracked outcomes is the heart of the paper. Characterizing the model's mixed evidence, especially weaker support in field studies, shows judgment about what one case can show. Implications earn credit when they follow Fiedler's emphasis on changing the situation. Fiedler's 1967 book and the two Psychological Bulletin meta-analyses, by Peters and colleagues and by Strube and Garcia, provide the sources in APA 7.
Common GM502 Unit 5 mistakes, and how to avoid them
GM502 Unit 5 papers often start with the leader and then rate the situation in a way that confirms the expected result. Others rate variables from impressions, so the octant placement cannot be checked. A common mistake is treating a whole unit as one situation when its work has different rhythms. Some writers misread the model's prediction, assuming relationship-motivated leaders are always better. Outcomes are frequently missing or vague. The model's evidence record is often ignored, which leads to overclaiming. Rate leader-member relations, task structure and position power first with evidence, place each rhythm of work in its octant, then assess the leader, state what the model predicts, compare it with outcomes, summarize how well the model has held up in research and propose changes to the situation the model would favor.
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. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GM502 papers and MS in Management samples
- GM502 Unit 1: Best Leader Traits and Behaviors Post
- GM502 Unit 2: Hiring Memo Trait Claims Analysis
- GM502 Unit 3: Night Shift Manager Behavior Paper
- GM502 Unit 4: Extraversion Score Self-Assessment
- GM502 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GM502 Unit 7: Leader Comparison Case
- GM502 Unit 8: Situational Analysis
- GM502 Unit 9: Influence and Power Paper
- GM502 Unit 10: Leadership Development Plan
- GM501 Unit 5: Water Utility Tacit Knowledge Case
- GM500 Unit 5: Matrix Structure Design Analysis
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.
Where can I find a free GM502 Unit 5 sample paper?
This page carries a full GM502 Unit 5 contingency model application at a newspaper metro desk, rating the situation first, placing two rhythms of work in different octants and testing the editor's results, with APA 7 references.
Why does Fiedler suggest changing the situation instead of the leader?
Fiedler treated a leader's motivational orientation as fairly stable. Changing task structure or position power can move a situation into an octant that suits the leader, such as adding reporting milestones to features so they become more structured.