Contingency Theory of Leadership Research Paper

Introduction

The contingency theory of leadership is a behavioral theory based on the general idea that “there is no one best way to organize a corporation, to lead a firm, or to make decisions”. Consequently, the best approach to leadership and decision making is determined by internal, as well as, external circumstances. The contingency theory is built on the following propositions. First, organizations are open entities or systems.

Thus, satisfying the internal needs of the organization and adapting to environmental situations requires careful management. Second, optimal organization can not be achieved through a single approach. Hence the best organizational approach should take into account the nature of the task and the environment being dealt with.

Fourth, management must focus on alignments, as well as, best of fits. Finally, “different organizational styles are required in different environments”. This paper attempts to critically review the effectiveness and applicability of the contingency theory. The conceptual, theoretical and empirical flaws in this theory will be discussed. Finally, recommendations on how the flaws can be corrected will be suggested.

Research Question

The contingency theory was developed in response to the deficiencies of earlier leadership models such as the bureaucracy and scientific management models. Proponents of the contingency theory argued that earlier leadership models failed to take into account the fact that management style, as well as, organizational structure are affected by environmental factors.

Thus, the contingency theory introduced the effect of environmental factors on the effectiveness of leadership. The main question that drives research in the area of contingency leadership is, ‘what are the contingency factors that determine effective leadership’?

While researchers generally agree that effective leadership depends on environmental circumstances, there has never been consensus on the contingency factors that inform effective leadership. This disagreement continues to motivate research in the field of contingency leadership. Recent empirical studies have led to the development of four variants of the contingency model of leadership.

The four variants include the Fiedler’s contingency model, the Hersey-Blanchard situational model, path-goal theory and the Vroom-Yetton leadership model. These variants of the contingency theory emphasize different factors that inform effective leadership. Thus, it is important to review each of the four variants before giving a critique of the contingency theory.

Fiedler’s Contingency Model

This model was developed by Fred Fiedler and it focuses on the relationship between “leadership style and the favorableness of the situation”. According to Fiedler’s model, the effectiveness of the leader is determined by situational contingency. Situational contingency is determined by leadership style, as well as, situational favorableness.

Fiedler considered leadership style to be fixed, and can be measured by an instrument referred to as “the least preferred co-worker (LPC)”. The LPC measures the leader’s leadership orientation. Using this instrument involves listing and describing all the people one has worked with using a bipolar scale. A high score on the LPC scale means that a person or a leader’s orientation is human relations. A low score on the other hand implies a task orientation.

Fielder asserts that an ideal leader does not exist. Thus, both task-oriented and relationship-oriented leaders can achieve high levels of effectiveness as long as their orientations are aligned to the situation. According to fielder, the favorableness of a situation is determined by the following factors. The first and most important factor is the leader-member relationship.

This relationship illustrates the level of trust, respect, as well as, confidence that exist between the subordinates and their leader. The second factor in terms of importance is task structure. Task structure refers to clarity of the various tasks assigned to groups. Finally, leader’s position power also determines the favorableness of the situation. It refers to the power associated with the position held by the leader.

The power exercised by the leader is based on formal authority. In conclusion, a situation is considered favorable if there is a “good leader-member relation, a highly structured task, and high leader position power”. In order to improve the effectiveness of the leader, the situation should be modified or aligned to the leader’s capabilities.

The process of improving the situation is referred to as job engineering. Improving the situation may involve changing the task structure or position power.

Hersey-Blanchard Situational Model

According to this model, the effectiveness of leadership depends on the relevance of the task to be accomplished. Thus, a leader will be effective if he is able to adapt his leadership style to ‘maturity’. In this context, maturity refers to the “capacity to set high but achievable goals; willingness and ability to take responsibility for the task and the relevance of education or experience of the leader or group for the task”.

Thus, the two factors that determine effective leadership are the leadership style and the level of maturity associated with the group.

Leadership style is described in terms of the task behavior, as well as, the relationship behavior provided by the leader to his followers. All leadership styles belong to one of the four behavior types. The behavior types are labeled S1 to S4 and can be explained as follows. S1 is referred to as ‘telling’ and involves one-way communication. In this case, the leader defines the group’s roles and explains how the task is to be done.

S2 is referred to as ‘selling’ and involves a two-way communication. In this case, the leader’s main role is to provide socio-economic support so that the group can buy into the task. S3 is referred to as ‘participation’. It involves making shared decisions concerning how the task is to be done.

S4 is referred to as ‘delegating’. In this case, the leader plays a passive role in decision making. The process, as well as, the responsibility of decision making rests with the group while the leader does the monitoring.

There are four levels of maturity, M1 to M2, which can be explained as follows. At M1, the group lacks the skills needed to complete the task. Besides, the group members are “not willing to take responsibility for the task at hand”. At M2, the group members are willing to complete the task.

However, they still lack the skills to complete it. At M3, the group members have the experience to accomplish the task. However, they are not confident enough to take responsibility. At M4, the members have the skills, confidence and are willing to accomplish the task as required.

A good leader is expected to enhance the competence, as well as, the commitment of his followers. This enables the followers to motivate themselves instead of relaying on directions and guidance offered by others.

Thus, the followers will realize high performance if their leader has high but realistic expectations. The performance of the followers will, however, be low if the leader has low expectations.

Path-Goal Model

According to this theory, a leaders’ behavior is dependent on three factors namely, the satisfaction, the motivation, as well as, the performance of the followers. This implies that a leader’s behavior is meant to enhance the performance of the followers and compensates for the weaknesses of the followers.

According to the path-goal model, the manager is expected to guide workers in choosing the “best paths to reach their goals”. The manager or the leader also provides the necessary direction and support so that followers can achieve their goals.

Consequently, leaders have to be involved in leadership behavior types that suite the needs of the situation at hand. The subordinates will accept the leader’s behavior if they believe such behaviors facilitate satisfaction and motivation. Additionally, the leader is likely to be accepted if he facilitates high performance through coaching subordinates and rewarding high performance.

Leaders can engage in four of the following leadership behaviors. First, the directive behavior involves clarifying the steps needed to achieve goals. In this case, the leader gives each subordinate a target and explains how various tasks are to be performed.

This behavior is important when subordinates’ roles are ambiguous. Second, the achievement-oriented behavior involves setting challenging goals to be achieved by the followers. The leader expects the highest performance from the followers and also expresses confidence in the followers’ ability to achieve their goals.

Third, the participative leadership behavior involves seeking followers’ opinion before making decisions. Finally, a leader can engage in supportive behavior in order to ensure that his followers are satisfied. In this case, the leader attempts to enhance the psychological well-being of his followers.

Leaders are assumed to be flexible enough to adapt their leadership styles to the needs of the situation at hand. The two contingency factors that determine effective leadership are environmental factors and followers’ characteristics. These factors influence the behavior-outcome relationship.

Vroom-Yetton Contingency Model

This model is also based on the premise that the best leadership style should depend on the situation being dealt with. According to this model, effective leadership is determined by the decision making process adopted by the leader.

The factors that influence decisions are “quality, commitment of group members, and time restrictions”. The model attempts to asses how the type of group, leader, as well as, situation determine the extent to which members of the group can be involved in the process of making decisions.

Five decision making styles are identified in this model. Thus, leaders can be classified based on their decision making styles. In this context, leaders can belong to the following categories. First, a person can be an autocratic type 1 (AI) leader. This type of leaders makes their decisions based on the information at their disposal. They tend to be dictators since their decisions are never questioned by the followers.

Second, a leader can be autocratic type 2 (AII). In this case, the leader obtains the needed information from the subordinates. The subordinates may also be informed about the problem for which a decision is to be made. However, the final decision is made only by the leader. Thus, the followers’ role is to provide information only. Third, a person can be a consultative type 1 (CI) leader.

In this case, the leader discusses the problem with the relevant followers on individual basis. The leader also seeks the ideas, as well as, suggestions of the followers, but makes the final decision alone. The followers are not consulted as a group, and the final decision may or may not be influenced by the followers’ ideas. Thus, the followers’ role is to provide alternative solutions at individual levels.

Fourth, the leader can be a consultative type 2 (CII). This type of a leader discusses the problem with the relevant followers as a group. The leader also seeks the ideas and suggestions of the followers at the group level. The followers are able to discuss and understand the available alternatives. However, the leader makes the final decision alone. Thus, the final decision may or may not be influenced by the ideas of the followers.

Finally, the leader can be group-based type 2 (GII). In this case, the leader consults his or her followers as a group. The followers suggest a variety of alternatives. The best alternative is then selected by the followers and is accepted as the final decision. This is the most democratic style of making decisions in organizations with many members.

Critique

Empirical Flaws

Fiedler’s contingency theory lacks the flexibility that is much needed for its application. This theory is based on the assumption that an individual’s leadership style is fixed, and thus, can not be changed. Consequently, if a leader is not able to handle a given situation, the best solution is to replace the leader. This approach denies leaders an opportunity to adjust to the situation.

For example, a leader with a low-LPC score and weak position is not expected to effectively lead a group with good relationships but performing unstructured tasks. In this case, the model suggests that the low-LPC leader should be replaced with a high LPC leader.

Thus, the model does not take into account the fact that the leader with a low-LPC score can simply be asked to change his leadership style in order to improve his effectiveness. The applicability of the LPC scale is also limited. For instance, it is not possible to categorize leaders whose scores fall at the center or middle of the measurement scale.

Besides, the LPC scale can fail to measure the personality traits it is meant to measure. This can happen if the user of the model is not aware of the items to include in the scale in order to measure particular personality traits.

The Hersey-Blanchard situational leadership is less applicable in situations involving time constraints, as well as, task complexity. With limited time, the group will not be able to evolve from M1 level of maturity to M1. Besides, variance in task complexity makes it difficult to rate the capability of the group according to the maturity scale.

For instance, skilled individuals who are willing to take responsibility for a task may be classified under M1 instead of M3 simply because the task is complex and can not be done easily. Empirical studies on the Hersey-Blanchard model reveal that it does not adequately measure performance. This limits its ability to improve performance.

The path-goal leadership model over emphasize the role of the leader. The leader is expected to influence the subordinates in most cases in order to achieve high performance. Thus, the subordinates tend to be dependent on the leader, and this limits the effectiveness of the model.

The Vroom-Yetton model asserts that time required to make a decision does not affect performance. However, time is a resource whose expenditure must correspond to the expected benefits. The model is based on the assumptions that all decision making styles have equal chance of meeting quality, as well as, acceptance requirements.

In reality, this assumption might not hold since each decision making style requires specific skills. The skills required of an autocrat are different from those required of a consultative leader. Hence, quality and acceptance can not be equal under all styles of making decisions.

Finally, the goal-congruence requirement of the Vroom-Yetton model implies that managers will always act in the company’s interest. However, this is not true since managers, in some cases, tend to act in their own interests instead of the company’s interest.

Theoretical Flaws

Fiedler’s contingency theory does not explain the variance in performance under different situations. For example, leaders with low LPC scores are expected to perform better under extreme situations of favorability. However, the model does not explain why this happens. Additionally, the model does not offer valuable advice on what should be done in cases where a person’s leadership style does not match the situation.

Hersey-Blanchard model does not offer adequate explanations about the relationship between leadership style and the levels of maturity or groups’ readiness. For instance, the performance of employees will not always be related to the leadership style used by managers. The Hersey-Blanchard model fails to address the effect of demographic factors on effective leadership and employee performance.

In most cases, demographic factors such as education, experience and age directly impacts the effectiveness of the leader. Besides, different genders tend to prefer different leadership styles. For example, female workers may prefer a supportive style of leadership.

Finally, the model does not distinguish between one-to-one leadership and group leadership. It is not clear whether members of the group should match their leadership styles to the characteristics of all members or to the group as a whole.

The path-goal model suggests that a leadership style will be accepted if it enhances motivation. However, the model fails to explain how leadership styles enhance motivation. Besides, the specific leadership styles that enhance motivation are not identified.

Conceptual Flaws

The validity of the Fiedler contingency model is not adequate. The validity of the model has been tested under different circumstance. The results reveal that even under ideal situations, the LPC scale can only achieve fifty percent reliable variance. Thus, the concept of using LPC scale can not be relied on as a gauge of leadership capability.

The Hersey-Blanchard model uses the concept of development levels to illustrate how competence should be combined with commitment to ensure high performance. However, the concept of development levels as presented in the model is ambiguous.

For instance, it is not clear how competence and commitment of the employee should be measured. In particular, commitment was not properly conceptualized by identifying the variables that measure it. Thus, it is not easy to gauge an employee’s level of commitment using the model.

The path-goal model incorporates several aspects of leadership. This has necessitated the use of many assumptions and concepts that are interrelated. Thus, it is difficult to understand the model. Additionally, the model lacks adequate empirical support for its validity. Thus, its concepts on effective leadership may not be applicable in reality.

The Vroom-Yetton model proposes a broad framework for making decisions by leaders. The framework is largely based on the extent to which subordinates are involved in the decision making process. The proposed decision making process is, thus, less useful due to its mechanical nature.

For instance, it does not take into account how changes in the environment or emotional changes can affect the outcome of decisions. Besides, the decision making model is not flexible and, thus, can not reflect reality. It is difficult to draw a line between the various styles of making decisions. For instance, an autocratic leader might change his style from time to time in order to improve the outcome of his decisions.

How to Correct the Flaws

Fiedler’s contingency theory is less applicable due to its assumption that leadership style is fixed. This assumption does not always hold since a leader can always change his leadership style through training and experience. Thus, in order to enhance the use of Fiedler’s model in an organizational setting, it is important to relax the assumption of fixed leadership.

In most cases, organizations might not have adequate supply of leaders. Thus, it will not be possible to keep changing leaders in order to handle different situations. Additional, encouraging leaders to change their leadership styles to match the situation at hand will enable the organization to save the resources that would be used to hire leaders that can handle specific situations.

The effectiveness of Fielder’s model can also be enhanced by improving the validity of the LPC scale. The LPC scale has only two extremes, the low and the high scores. It ignores any scores that might fall in between the two extremes. Thus, it is necessary to add more ordinal scales in order to improve the effectiveness of the LPC scale.

Finally, it is important to investigate the relationship between a leader’s performance and the characteristics of any given situation. This will help in explaining why some leaders perform better in some situations. Consequently, it will be possible to use the model to predict the performance of a leader under different circumstances.

The Hersey-Blanchard model uses the maturity levels to gauge the ability of followers to complete a task. However, the model does not explain the factors that determine the followers’ confidence or willingness to take responsibility for a task. The factors that influence followers’ confidence should be indentified in order to improve the applicability of the model.

For instance, the user of the model needs to know why followers at M1 level of maturity are not willing to take responsibility for a task. This will help to formulate policies that enhance confidence among the followers. Additionally, the model’s ability to measure performance can be improved by incorporating more performance measurement parameters such as task complexity.

Additionally, investigations should be done on the relationship between leadership style and the performance of the followers. This is based on the fact that the leadership style used by a leader is not always reflected in the performance of the followers. The theoretical perspective of the model will be more robust if its users are able to understand how leadership styles lead to better performance among the followers.

The lack of a consistent relationship between leadership style and performance perhaps suggest that there are other factors that determine the followers’ performance. Thus, the Hersey-Blanchard model should take into account the effect of demographic factors on the followers’ performance.

The application of path-goal model is limited due to the fact that it places great responsibility on the leaders. The leaders are expected to enhance the performance of their followers by providing guidance. Thus, there should be a balanced distribution of responsibility between the leader and the followers.

The leaders should play a limited role in providing guidance and support while the followers should be allowed to use their knowledge and experience to achieve their targets. Giving followers more responsibilities will encourage them to be proactive and independent in solving problems.

Additionally, the path-goal model should address a specific aspect of leadership and performance. This will help to avoid incorporating several interrelated concepts which cause confusion in the model.

The Vroom-Yetton model can be improved by relaxing some of its assumptions. The assumption that managers always act in the interest of the organization should be relaxed since it does not hold in most cases. The model should also encourage flexibility in making decisions. Instead of encouraging a fixed style of making decisions, leaders should be encouraged to adapt their styles to the situations or problems being solved.

Additionally, the quality of decisions does not depend only on the extent to which followers are involved as the model states. Thus, it is important to include the effect of environmental factors on the process of making decisions, as well as, the outcome of decisions.

The environmental factors that are likely to affect the quality of decisions include, group cohesions, quality of information, structural faults and demographic factors such as age, and gender of the participants.

Conclusion

Contingency leadership is based on the premise that there is no single ideal leadership model since leaders operate in changing environments. Thus, the leadership style should be adapted to the situation being handled. Currently, research in the area of contingency leadership focuses on the question, ‘what contingency factors determine effective leadership’?

Earlier attempts to answer this question led to the development of four models of contingency leadership. These models include Fiedler’s contingency theory, Hersey-Blanchard situational model, path-goal model and the Vroom-Yetton model. According to Fiedler’s model, effective leadership is determined by the “favorableness of the situation being handled and the leadership style adopted”.

In Hersey-Blanchard model, effective leadership depends on leadership style and the capability or maturity level of the group. According to the path-goal model, effective leadership is determined by the environmental factors and followers’ characteristics.

In Vroom-Yetton model, the decision making style adopted by the leader determines his effectiveness. Recent researches in the area of contingency leadership have focused on assessing the reliability or effectiveness of the aforementioned models. In particular, current researches attempt to address the weaknesses of these models.

References

Abramson, N. (2007). The Leadership Archetype. Journal of Business Ethics 72(2) , 115-129.

Duygulu, E. (2008). team Effectiveness and Leadership Roles. Journal of Academic Research in Economics 2(4), 211-218.

Heiens, R., & Pleshksi, L. (2011). A Contingency Thoery Approach to Market Orientation and Related Marketing Concepts. Management and Marketing 6(4), 410-442.

Horner-Long, P., & Schoenberg, R. (2002). Does e-Business Require Different Leadership Characteristics? European Management Journal 20(6), 611-619.

Lussier, R., & Achuu, C. (2009). Leadership: Theory, Application and Skill Development. New York: Cengage Learning.

Miner, J. (2005). Organizational Behavior. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Nohria, N., & Khuranu, R. (2010). Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice. New York: Cengage Learning.

Northouse, P. (2009). Leadership: Theory and Parctice. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Omren, A., Muhmood, A., & Hussin, A. (2009). Leadership: How to be an Effective Manager. Journal of Academic Research in Economics 1(3), 334-346.

Rowe, G., & Guerrero, L. (2010). Cases in Leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sims, H., Faraj, S., & Yun, S. (2009). When should a Leader be Directive or Empowering? How to Develop your Own Situational Theory of Leadership. Business Horizons 52(2), 149-158.

Tosi, H., Mero, N., & Rizzo, J. (2000). Managing Organizational Behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons