| Course | BU 530 Business Leadership Foundations |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Contingency and situational analysis |
| Length | About 1,030 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 530 Unit 3
Five Roofs, Eight Octants and Two Judgment Calls: A Contingency Analysis Applying Fiedler's Model to a Composite Phoenix Roofing Superintendent's Work
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 530: Business Leadership Foundations
Instructor Name
January 26, 2026
Five Roofs, Eight Octants and Two Judgment Calls: A Contingency Analysis Applying Fiedler's Model to a Composite Phoenix Roofing Superintendent's Work
The Model and Its Record
This paper tests whether Fiedler's contingency model can tell apart the situations I lead in. I am a site superintendent for a composite commercial roofing contractor in Phoenix, responsible for four crews of five to seven roofers, each with a foreman, across two or three job sites at a time. I report to the company's operations manager and work daily with project managers, general contractors' superintendents and subcontractors.
Fiedler (1967) proposed that a leader's effectiveness depends on the match between a stable motivational orientation and the favorability of the situation. Orientation is measured with the least preferred coworker scale: leaders who describe their least preferred coworker harshly are task-motivated, and those who describe that person more generously are relationship-motivated. Favorability is set by three variables in order of importance. Leader-member relations are good or poor, task structure is high or low, and position power is strong or weak. The combinations form eight octants, from most favorable (good relations, high structure, strong power) to least favorable. The model predicts that task-motivated leaders do best at both extremes and relationship-motivated leaders do best in the middle octants.
The research record is mixed. Strube and Garcia (1981) found that meta-analytic evidence generally supported the predicted pattern. Peters et al. (1985) found the support stronger in laboratory studies than in field studies, and some octant predictions were not confirmed in the field. The model is worth testing, but its prescriptions should be held loosely.
My Orientation
On the least preferred coworker scale in the course reading, my score fell in the lower range, indicating a task-motivated orientation. Fiedler treated this orientation as stable, so the model's advice to a leader is not to change style but to change the situation, a process he called job engineering, or to work in situations that fit.
Five Situations Classified
Each situation is described only far enough to classify it.
S1. Re-roofing a big-box store with Crew A
A 120,000-square-foot store, single-ply membrane over new insulation, details drawn from the manufacturer's standard set. Crew A has worked together for six years and gets on well with me. I assign their hours and job, and can recommend discipline.
S2. Pre-construction coordination with a general contractor's superintendent
A new medical office building where the roofing sequence depends on when mechanical units are set, which nobody has decided. The general contractor's superintendent and I disagreed sharply on a previous project. I have no authority over his schedule.
S3. Warranty leak investigations at an occupied school with Crew C
Water is appearing in three classrooms, and the source is unknown. Crew C's foreman is new but the crew trusts both of us. I control the crew's assignment.
S4. A warehouse tear-off with Crew D after two dismissals
Crew D lost two members for repeated missed shifts in November, and the remaining four hold me partly responsible. The work itself, removing and replacing a roof on a simple warehouse, is routine. I control assignments and hours.
S5. Flashing coordination with a sheet metal subcontractor's lead
The subcontractor fabricates and installs metal flashing around our membrane. Relations are good, the details are drawn but need field adjustment, and the lead does not report to me.
| Situation | Relations | Task structure | Position power | Octant | Favorability | Model's prescription | Fit with my orientation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | Good | High | Strong | I | High | Task-motivated | Fits |
| S2 | Poor | Low | Weak | VIII | Low | Task-motivated | Fits |
| S3 | Good | Low | Strong | III | High | Task-motivated | Fits |
| S4 | Poor | High | Strong | V | Moderate | Relationship-motivated | Mismatch |
| S5 | Good | High, judged | Weak | II | High | Task-motivated | Fits |
The Difficult Classifications
Two classifications were judgment calls, and one of them changes the prescription.
S3's task structure could be argued either way. Leak investigation follows a recognized procedure of inspection and controlled water testing, which is structured; but the goal, finding the source, has no known path, which is unstructured. I classified it as low structure because Fiedler's task structure concerns whether the goal and the route to it are clear, and here they were not. If it were classified high, the octant would be I and the prescription would not change.
S4's leader-member relations were poor for about three weeks after the dismissals and may be recovering. The model treats relations as good or poor with nothing between, so a crew in transition must be forced into one category. Classified poor, S4 sits in octant V, the only situation where the model prescribes a relationship-motivated leader and the only mismatch with my orientation. Classified good, it would sit in octant I and fit. The prescription for my most difficult current situation therefore depends on a judgment the model gives me no way to make.
S5's task structure was also judged. The flashing details are drawn but need field adjustment; I classified the task as high structure because the drawings set the goal and most of the route.
What the Model Did and Did Not Show
The model separated the situations reasonably well. It placed four of five in octants where my orientation fits, which matches my experience that these are the situations I handle comfortably. It flagged the one situation, S4, that has been hardest, and its job engineering advice is usable: improving relations with Crew D, for example by letting the crew choose how the work is divided, would move the situation toward octant I.
Its weaknesses showed as well. Its two-category variables could not represent a crew in transition, and the prescription for S4 flipped on that one call. It also says nothing about how to behave once a mismatch is found, other than to change the situation. Peters et al. (1985) found that several octant predictions were not confirmed in field settings, which suggests extra caution about the one prescription that would change what I do.
The analysis also exposed something the model takes for granted. All five situations share one leader, but they do not share one set of followers: in S2 and S5 the people I need to influence do not work for me at all. Fiedler's position power variable captures that as weak power, yet the practical problem in those situations is less about power than about coordination between two organizations with different schedules. A model built around a leader and a work group fits the crew situations better than the coordination ones, and that limit matters for a superintendent, whose day is split roughly evenly between the two.
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
BU 530 Unit 3 instructions, in plain terms
The third BU 530 unit asks students to apply a contingency model to several situations from their own working life. Expect to set out the model with its variables and prescriptions, attribute it, report its research record honestly, describe each situation only as far as needed to classify it, apply the model, report what it prescribes and examine the classifications that were hard. Unlike a single case application, this unit tests whether the model can distinguish situations, so they should differ. If your situations are similar, choose ones that vary in structure or authority. Describing a real project in detail can expose clients or colleagues, so keep descriptions minimal and use roles rather than names.
How the BU 530 Unit 3 example is put together
The paper opens by describing the writer's role and setting out Fiedler's model: orientation, three favorability variables, eight octants and the predicted pattern, with the meta-analytic record. A short section reports the writer's orientation and Fiedler's advice to change the situation rather than the style. Five situations follow under run-in headings, each described only through the three variables, and a table classifies them with octant, prescription and fit. A section on difficult classifications works through three judgment calls and shows how one changes the prescription. The close assesses what the model did well, where its two-category variables failed and why it fits crew situations better than coordination with other firms.
BU 530 Unit 3 rubric: what full points look like
Herzing's rubric for the contingency analysis usually weighs accurate presentation of the model, an honest research record, adequate situation descriptions, correct application, examination of difficult classifications and a reasoned conclusion. Presentation earns credit when variables and prescriptions are stated as the author defined them. The research record scores when mixed evidence is reported rather than hidden. Situation descriptions are judged on sufficiency, enough to classify and no more. Five situations give the model a fair test without turning the paper into a diary. Application is checked for consistency with the model's rules. Difficult classifications often carry the most weight, since naming where judgment entered is the point of testing several situations. The conclusion earns points when it says what the model can and cannot do.
BU 530 Unit 3 help: mistakes that cost points
Contingency papers lose marks when the situations are described as stories but never reduced to the model's variables. Another frequent problem is applying the model to one situation only, which tests nothing. Writers often present Fiedler's prescriptions as settled without mentioning the mixed field evidence. Some hide the judgment calls, classifying every situation confidently. Others change the model's variables to fit their experience. Many forget that Fiedler treats orientation as fixed and advises changing the situation, so a paper recommending a new personal style has misread the model. If you need help reducing your own situations to a model's variables, our writers can draft a classification and analysis around your work.
Get a BU 530 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Bring us the Unit 3 instructions, the BU 530 rubric in your classroom and whichever contingency model your section teaches. We write a custom example that reports the model with its evidence record, classifies several situations in its own variables and closes on what it could not see. First custom sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 530 papers and MBA samples
- BU 530 Unit 1: Leadership theory overview
- BU 530 Unit 2: Trait and behavioral approaches
- BU 530 Unit 4: Self-assessment with limits
- BU 530 Unit 5: Theory comparison
- BU 530 Unit 6: Ethics and influence paper
- BU 530 Unit 7: Feedback analysis
- BU 530 Unit 8: Leadership development plan
- BU 531 Unit 3: Risk profile per option
- BU 502 Unit 3: Behavioral diagnosis
- BU 506 Unit 3: Root cause analysis
- BU 525 Unit 3: Gap analysis
BU 530 Unit 3 questions, answered
How is this different from applying a theory to a case?
An undergraduate paper picks a theory, applies it to one situation and shows that it fits. Here the model is on trial: you report what evidence supports it, run it across several situations and report where it struggled. The finding can be that the framework discriminated poorly, which is a legitimate and often stronger conclusion.
What if my situations are all fairly similar?
Then say so and treat the sameness as evidence. A writer whose work is uniformly structured, with stable authority and experienced colleagues, will get one classification repeatedly, and that tells you something real about the range the model was built to cover. Reach for a situation from earlier in your career if the instructions allow it.
Can I describe an actual project to make the situation concrete?
Describe it at the level the model needs and no further: how structured the work was, where authority sat, how experienced the group was. Leave out client names, project codes, financial detail and anything that identifies the organization. Internal project documents, staffing plans and review records belong to your employer, and a graded paper is read outside it.
Where can I find a free BU 530 Unit 3 sample paper?
This page carries the full BU 530 Unit 3 contingency and situational analysis free, with five classified situations, the octant table, the judgment calls and margin notes. Using another model or other situations? Tell us the model and the situations, and we classify them for you free, typically within two days.
What if a situation does not fit the model's categories in BU 530 Unit 3?
Say so and show how the classification changes the result. The sample's crew in transition could be read as poor or good relations, and the prescription flips between them.