1. Universal Leadership Model
Presented by name

2. Objectives
By the end of the presentation, the following topics and concepts should have been sufficiently covered.
An overview of both universal model of leadership and the contingency model of leadership.
A comparison between the two models of leadership, that is, their similarities and differences.
A list the limitations of each model.
Development of valid conclusions on the business application of both models.

3. Universal Leadership Model Overview
Previously, the theories applied in leadership development have been largely randomized and unintegrated therefore achieving poor results (Anderson & Adams, 2015). The universal model was thus developed to solve the extant complex leadership development needs.
Anderson and Adams presents the model in a circle with two axes, vertical and horizontal. The vertical axis represents the development of the leaders inner game from reactive to creative, as a mirror of adult development framework, while the horizontal axis is defined by relationships and tasks.
The interaction of these axes produces four quadrants that are the core of Universal leadership model. Therefore, from the four quadrants, a leader can manage people creatively or reactively, or manage tasks creatively or reactively.

4. Outer game Inner game Inner and Outer Game Management Process
Competency and Research
Outer game
Character
Self consciousness
Inner game
Mastering leadership goes beyond physical skills such knowledge and experience, as well as our technical, managerial, and leadership competence that are essential to accomplish results.

5. The Leadership Circle Profile
From the core model, a Leadership Circle profile (LCP) is created.
The LCP is the tool used to measure the effectiveness of a leader under the Universal leadership model.
In the outer circle of the top half of the Leadership Circle Profile (as presented in the previous slide), 18 competencies that epitomize effective leadership and business performance are selected while 11 other competencies that are inverse to leadership effectiveness and business performance are chosen to represent the bottom half.
The 18 upper competencies are grouped into five concepts that stand for the best leadership practices and theories. These are: relating and self-awareness to represent the people-creative quadrant, achieving and system awareness to represent the tasks creative quadrant, and Authenticity at the middle since its is essential for both individual and collective effective leadership (Anderson & Adams, 2015).
On the other hand, the 11 bottom follow a similar pattern, that complying represent the people-reactive quadrant, while controlling occupies the task-reactive one with protecting at the middle.
Scores of these competencies are used to determine optimal leadership profile. High optimal leadership profile has low reactive scores but high creative and balanced task-relational scores.

6. Contingency Leadership Model Overview
Leadership styles
Situation (Contingency)
Leadership Mode
The Fiedler’s Contingency Model of leadership was introduced in the 1960s. The main precept of the model is there is no best style of leadership, but several depending on the interaction between leadership styles and situational factors (contingencies).
However, Fiedler assumed that every person has a fixed leadership style which can be easily found using the Least-Preferred Co-worker (LPC) scale. The LPC scale involves asking the leader several questions about their least favorite work or business colleague; that is, what they feel about them on a scale of say 1 to 8. The sum of the scores from each factor is used to determine the leadership style.
High scores illustrate a relationship-oriented leader (people oriented leaders generally view their LPC positively) while a low score shows a task-oriented leader (task oriented leaders tend to view their LPC negatively).

7. Contingency Model Cont.
The favorableness of a situation is based on three factors:
-Leader-member relation- this depends of the trust and confidence people have in the leader. A trusted leader experiences a favorable situation.
-Task structure- Clear and structured tasks are favorable while unclear, unstructured tasks are unfavorable.
-Leader’s position power- the power to reward or punish the group. More power means more favorable situation (Ellyson et al., 2012).
The interactions of these factors determine the favored style of leadership. For example, poor (low) leader-member relation combined with a clearly structured (high) task and then high position power favors relational leadership. On the other hand low leader-member relation combined with low task structure and low position power favors task-oriented leadership.

8. Limitations
The main limitation of the Contingency Model is highly inflexible.
For leaders who fall in the middle range of the Least-Preferred Co- worker (LPC) scale, their leadership style under this model becomes unclear.
For cases where there is genuine reason to dislike a colleague, such as extreme laziness, the leader may be classified as task-oriented when in reality they are relationship-oriented.
The inflexibility of the model stems from Fiedler’s assumption that people’s leadership styles are natural and thus cannot be changed. Therefore, the only way to adjust to changing situational favorableness is to change the leader. For example, if a relational leader is in charge of a group with high leader-member relation, highly structured tasks, and high power position, the leader has to be replaced with a task-oriented one.

9. Similarities
Both theories focus on tasks or relationship inclination of the leaders to define their leadership style.
Both models recognize the importance of effective leadership in insuring the success of a group.

10. Differences
While the Universal model figures in the inner game of the leader, that is, the level of maturity, on top of their external relations; the contingency theory only focusses on the external tendencies of the leader.
The contingency theory assumes that leadership styles are inborn and therefore cannot be changed, while the Universal Model stipulates that a leadership style can be developed simply by building on the core competencies (Anderson & Adams, 2015).
While the Contingency Model considers the environment in which leadership is practiced (Ellyson et al., 2012), the Universal Model does not.

11. Significance of the Model in business
The universal model offers the opportunity to increase the pace at which new leaders are trained to meet the complex and ever changing business world (Anderson & Adams, 2015).
The universal model increases the potential of existing leaders, and business, by going beyond skills and technical knowhow to character growth.
Fiedler’s Contingency model implies that its essential to match leadership with the job situation in order to increase the business productiveness and efficiency.
The universal model, unlike most models before it, integrates the best leadership theories to produce a wholesome package that can be used to effectively train and mentor the new breed on leaders in a short time (Anderson & Adams, 2015).
According to Anderson and Adams, great leadership is connected to the deepest parts of its bearer. That is, people who are well grounded at an emotional and spiritual level become better leaders who ably deal with the complex business world.

12. Conclusions
The Universal Model of leadership is better than the contingency model. That is, the Universal Model improves on the limitation of the contingency model.
By allowing for the gradual development of the leadership abilities, the universal model is superior to the contingency theory which asserts that leadership can only be naturally acquired.

13. References
Anderson, R. J., Adams, B., & Adams, W. A. (2015). Mastering leadership: An integrated framework for breakthrough performance and extraordinary business results. John Wiley & Sons.
Ellyson, L. M., Gibson, J. H., Nichols, M., & Doerr, A. (2012). A study of Fiedler's contingency theory among military leaders. In Allied Academies International Conference. Academy of Strategic Management. Proceedings (Vol. 11, No. 1, p. 7). Jordan Whitney Enterprises, Inc.