Topic 5 Contingency

Leadership
Theories

LEARNING OUTCOMES
By the end of this topic, you should be able to:
\q Define and explain the contingency leadership theories
Understand the advantageous and disadvantages of the theory

1.0 THE CONTIGENCY APPROACH

The Contingency Theory of Leadership states that a leader’s effectiveness is

contingent upon with how his or her leadership style matches to the situation
(Leadership Theories). That is, the leader must find out what kind of leadership style
and situation he or she thrives in. The Contingency Theory is concerned with the
following:
• “There is no one best style of leadership” (Fiedler’s Contingency Model)
• A leader is effective when his or her style of leadership fits with the situation
(Fiedler’s Contingency Model)

The Contingency Theory of leadership was developed by Fred Fiedler in 1958 during
his research of leader effectiveness in group situations. Fiedler believed that one’s
effectiveness to lead depended on one’s control of the situation and the style of
leadership. Unlike the Situational Theory of leadership, leader effectiveness is
contingent on the leader’s style matching the situation, not adapting to it. This theory
assumes that styles are fixed, and that they cannot be adapted or modified.

Principles of Leadership 1 | Page

The main idea of this early theory is that leadership effectiveness (in terms of group
performance) depends on the interaction of two factors: the leader's task or relations
motivations and aspects of the situation. The leader's task or relations motivation is
measured through the Least Preferred Co-worker 1 scale (LPC). This scale asks
leaders to recall a co-worker (previously or currently) they work with least well and to
characterize this individual with ratings on a series of 8-point bipolar adjectives (e.g.,
distant– cold). High LPC scores reflect more positive descriptions of the least
preferred co-worker, whereas low LPC scores evidence more negative perceptions.
Fielder argued that an individual with a high LPC score is motivated to maintain
harmonious interpersonal relationships, whereas an individual with a low LPC score
is motivated to focus on task accomplishment.

The interpretation of exactly what high and low LPC scores mean has been the
subject of much controversy and debate. For example, Robert Rice suggested that
scores on the LPC represent values and attitudes, whereas other scholars have
drawn linkages between high and low LPCs and task versus relations leadership
behaviours. Fielder contended that task and relations motivations are stable traits
that are not easily amenable to change. Therefore, attempts to encourage a high or
low LPC leader to adapt to changing situations would be difficult, if not altogether
futile. To optimize the possibility of an effective group outcome, this model advocates
matching a high or low LPC leader to the right type of situation.

The model purports that task or relations motivations are contingent on whether the
leader can control and predict the group's outcome (i.e., situational favourability).
Situational favourability depends on three assessments: (1) whether the leader
perceives cooperative relations with subordinates (leader-member relations), (2)
whether the task is highly structured with standardized procedures and measures of
adequate performance (task structure), and (3) whether the leader's level of authority
is punishing or rewarding group members (position power). The combination of
leader-member relations, task structure, and position power creates eight different
situational types, known as octants 1–8, that have been more broadly categorized as
favourable situations, intermediate situations, and unfavourable situations. Each
different situational type is most effectively handled by either a high or low LPC
leader.

Principles of Leadership 2 | Page

1.1 PATH-GOAL THEORY

Path–goal theory was originally developed by Martin Evans in 1970 and expanded
by Robert House in 1971 into a more complex contingency theory. Drawing on
expectancy theory and the Ohio and Michigan leader behaviour studies, House
suggested that a leader should help elucidate the path for followers to achieve group
goals. This involves the leader employing behaviours in specific situations to
increase follower satisfaction and motivate efforts toward task accomplishment. The
theory identifies four types of leader behaviour that include supportive (relations
oriented), directive (task oriented), achievement oriented, participative leader
behavior, as well as two aspects of the situation, namely, follower characteristics and
task characteristics.

In situations where the task is dull or taxing, the theory predicts that supportive
leadership behaviours may increase followers' interest in task accomplishment and
encourage followers' expectations of a successful outcome. In turn, this may
motivate followers' efforts to achieve the task. In situations where the task is
ambiguous or complicated, directive behaviours such as clarifying the task at hand
and stressing rewards contingent on good performance could increase followers'
positive expectancies. This may consequently motivate followers' efforts to achieve
designated goals.

Many studies have examined postulates derived from path–goal theory. Overall,
these studies provide mixed support for the theory. Various intellectuals have argued
that it may be premature to draw any firm conclusions regarding the validity of the
theory because of methodological limitations associated with past research and
sparse empirical attention to various variables outlined in the model. For example,
little empirical research has investigated participative and achievement-oriented
leadership styles. However, path–goal theory has made an important contribution in
highlighting the potential influence of leaders on followers' motivation and
performance.

Principles of Leadership 3 | Page

The Path-Goal model is primarily concerned with identifying processes (paths) that
will allow each team member to meet their individual objectives (goals). Leaders who
implement this model adjust their behaviors and expectations to positively affect their
team’s productivity. This goal requires the leader to be extremely flexible in their
leadership style. They will have to find a way to meet each team member’s specific
needs to assist them in reaching their daily or weekly goals.

The Path-Goal model focuses on improving employee motivation, autonomy, and

satisfaction to increase their productivity within an organization. To accomplish this,
the model identifies four different leadership styles. These include:

1. The Directive Clarifying Leader

This style is used in situations where the leader tells employees what is expected of
them and instructs them on how to perform certain tasks. The theory states that this
style is the most effective when the employees’ role and task are unstructured or
ambiguous.

2. The Achievement-Oriented Leader

This behavior occurs in situations where the leader sets lofty goals for employees,
expects them to perform at a high level and shows complete confidence in their
capabilities. This style is productive in environments that attract high-achievers, such
as hospitals, scientific laboratories and law firms.

3. The Participative Leader

Leaders who use this style consult with their employees and ask for their input
before making decisions. This behavior would be well-received in a workplace where
the employees are personally invested in the outcome and results of their work.

4. The Supportive Leader

This style focuses on the satisfaction of employees’ needs and considers their
personal preferences. A supportive leader is as concerned with their employees’
mental health and well-being as they are with their productivity. This style is suitable
for work environments that can be stressful or mentally challenging.

Principles of Leadership 4 | Page

1.2 NORMATIVE LEADERSHIP THEORY

Many contingency theories define leadership effectiveness in terms of group

performance or team satisfaction. However, the normative decision model is a
unique contingency theory in its exclusive focus on providing prescriptions to
optimize the leader's decision-making process. The normative decision model,
originally developed by Victor Vroom and Phillip Yetton in 1973 and later revised by
Victor Vroom and Arthur Jago, emphasizes situational factors more than leadership
behaviours. It outlines a set of five different decision-making strategies that range on
a continuum from directive to participative decision making. These strategies include
two types of autocratic styles (the leader decides alone), two types of consultative
styles (the leader consults followers but decides alone), and a group decision-
making option (group consensus).

1.3 SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORY

Proposes that leadership effectiveness depends on the leader's ability to tailor his or
her behaviour to the demands of the situation, namely, the subordinate's level of
maturity. This theory builds on the earlier Ohio and Michigan studies and extends
Blake and Mouton's work in emphasizing a combination of task and relation
behaviours (but here task and relation behaviours are called directing and
supporting). Hersey and Blanchard highlight four different types of leadership
behaviour based on combining directive and supportive behaviour: telling (high
directive, low support), selling (high directive, high supporting), participating (low
directive, high supportive), and delegating (low directive, low supportive).

The leader's function is to continually evaluate and adapt his or her behaviour to
each follower's task maturity 3 (i.e., ability) and psychological maturity (i.e.,
willingness) to complete the task at hand. For instance, when a follower has lower
maturity, it prescribes that a leader should tell the follower how to get the job done.
When a follower is more mature, he or she does not need as much direction or
significant support in accomplishing the task. In this case, it would be best to
delegate the task to the follower.

Principles of Leadership 5 | Page

 • Delegating style: A low-task, low-relationship style wherein the leader allows
the group to take responsibility for task decisions. This is best used with high
maturity followers.
• Participating style: A low-task, high-relationship style that emphasizes
shared ideas and decisions. Managers using the participating style tend to
use it with moderate followers who are not only experienced but with those
who aren't as confident to do the tasks assigned.
• Selling style: Refers to a high-task, high-relationship style, in which the
leader attempts to sell his ideas to the group by explaining task directions in a
persuasive manner. This, too, is used with moderate followers. Unlike the
previous style, these followers have the ability but are unwilling to do the job.
• Telling style: Refers a high-task, low-relationship style wherein the leader
gives explicit directions and supervises work closely. This style is geared
toward low maturity followers.

Principles of Leadership 6 | Page

 Class Activity

1. How does contingency theory affect leadership style?

2. What is the focus on the contingency theories that contribute to leadership
success?

SUMMARY

● Fiedler’s model says there are three important factors for “situational

favourableness”: leader-member relations, task structure, and leader’s
position power.
● The situational leadership model (aka Hersey-Blanchard model) thinks
leaders should determine which leadership style would be more effective for
a particular team and situation. For this, leaders ought to choose from four
leadership styles – Delegating style, participating style, selling style, and
Telling style.
● The Path-Goal Theory of Leadership states that leaders should be extremely
flexible in selecting a concrete style to help team members reach their
individually set goals. When saying leadership styles, the model mentions
The Directive Clarifying Leader, The Achievement-Oriented Leader, The
Participative Leader, and The Supportive Leader.

Principles of Leadership 7 | Page

Principles of Leadership 8 | Page