The Contingency Theories of Leadership

The contingency theories of leadership basically state that there is no best style of leadership. Rather, it is the situation that will decide what kind of style would be the most effective in achieving the organizational objectives

Fiedlers contingency theory

Fred Fiedler was one of the foremost proponents of contingency leadership. He believed that there are two types of the leaders, the task oriented one and the people oriented one.

Fiedlers contingency theory

He stated that the effectiveness of types of leadership styles was determined on 3 Factors. How clearly defined and structured the job scope is How much positional power the leader has The relationship between the leaders and the followers

 Fiedler believed that the most favorable situation is one that has a clearly defined scope, high positional power and good relationship between the leaders and the followers

 Fiedler found that task-oriented leaders are more effective in extremely favorable or unfavorable situations, whereas relationship oriented leaders perform best in situations with intermediate favorability

How clearly defined and structured the job scope is

Having clear instructions are very important to your team. Unclear instructions will reap you vague results and also a very demoralized worker. Often it is very important for you as a leader to tell your team exactly what you need from them, and when you need it. By setting expectations straight, your team is able to know if they have achieved their target simply by checking their completed task against your list of expectations for that particular task.

How clearly defined and structured the job scope is

For example, you dont say, Would you help me write a report about the current economic situation and how it relates to our business? From the leaders perspective, you probably think you sent a clear message across, but from the followers perspective, he doesnt even know what has to be included in that report!

How much positional power the leader has

Most people in leadership have what we call, positional power. They are leaders by virtue of their position in the organization. It is important that a leader first have that position, but if you want to become a real leader, you have to qualify for that position before your followers will really look up to you as a leader.

This means you have to have a good relationship with your followers.

The relationship between leaders and followers

To build a strong team, you have a have a great relationship with your followers, because it is the foundation of your leadership. Without a great relationship, you cannot qualify to speak into their lives and influence them..

 As per the books :

Contingency Models of Leadership

Contingency Models What makes a manager an effective leader in one situation is not necessarily what that manager needs to be equally effective in another situation

Contingency Models of Leadership

Contingency Models Whether or not a manager is an effective leader is the result of the interplay between what the manager is like, what he does, and the situation in which leadership takes place

Contingency Models of Leadership

Fiedlers Model
Effective leadership is contingent on both the characteristics of the leader and of the situation. Leader style is the enduring, characteristic approach to leadership that a manager uses and does not readily change.

Contingency Models of Leadership

Fiedlers Model
Relationship-oriented style: leaders concerned with developing good relations with their subordinates and to be liked by them. Task-oriented style: leaders whose primary concern is to ensure that subordinates perform at a high level so the job gets done.

Fiedlers Model
Situation Characteristics
Leader-member relations extent to which followers like, trust, and are loyal to their leader Task structure extent to which the work to be performed is clear-cut so that a leaders subordinates know what needs to be accomplished and how to go about doing it

Fiedlers Model
Situation Characteristics
Position Power - the amount of legitimate, reward, and coercive power leaders have due to their position. When positional power is strong, leadership opportunity becomes more favorable.

Fiedlers Leadership Contingency Model (Cont.)

Leaders Motivational Situational Favorableness System Major variables In Fiedlers Contingency Theory 1. Leader-Member Relationships 2. Task Structure 3. Leaders Position Power

Outcome

Leadership Style

Effectiveness

Fiedlers Leadership Contingency Model

Task-oriented style

Relationships-oriented considerate style

Task-oriented style

Favorable leadership situation

Situation intermediate in favorable lenses for leader

Unfavorable leadership situation

Fiedlers Leadership Contingency Model(Cont.)

Synthesis of the Fiedler Contingency Model

Performance Good

Task-oriented Relationship-oriented

Poor

Favorable

Moderate

Unfavorable

Category I II III IV V VI VII VIII Leader- member Good Good Good Good Poor Poor Poor Poor relations Task structure High High Low Low High High Low Low Position power Weak Strong Weak Strong Weak Strong Weak Strong

Fiedlers Contingency Theory of Leadership

Fiedlers Contingency Theory of Leadership

Fielders four primary tests to measure a leaders personality and how it will apply to different situations:
1. 2. 3. 4. Least Preferred Coworkers Scale Situational Favorableness Leader-Situation Match and Mismatch TBA

Fiedlers Contingency Theory of Leadership

Fiedlers Contingency Leadership Model

Summary
To Fiedler, stress is a key determinant of leader effectiveness and a distinction is made between stress related to the leaders superior, and stress related to subordinates or the situation itself. In stressful situations, leaders dwell on the stressful relations with others and cannot focus their intellectual abilities on the job.

Summary

contd..

Thus, intelligence is more effective and used more often in stress-free situations. Fiedler has found that experience impairs performance in low-stress conditions but contributes to performance under high-stress conditions. As with other situational factors, for stressful situations Fiedler recommended altering or engineering the leadership situation to capitalize on the leaders strengths.

Examples
Task-oriented leadership would be advisable in natural disaster, like a flood or fire. In an uncertain situation the leader-member relations are usually poor, the task is unstructured, and the position power is weak. The one who emerges as a leader to direct the group's activity usually does not know subordinates personally. The task-oriented leader who gets things accomplished proves to be the most successful. If the leader is considerate (relationship-oriented), they may waste so much time in the disaster, that things get out of control and lives are lost.

Examples
Blue-collar workers generally want to know exactly what they are supposed to do. Therefore, their work environment is usually highly structured. The leader's position power is strong if management backs their decision

Examples
Finally, even though the leader may not be relationship-oriented, leader-member relations may be extremely strong if they can gain promotions and salary increases for subordinates. Under these situations the task-oriented style of leadership is preferred over the (considerate) relationship-oriented style. The considerate (relationship-oriented) style of leadership can be appropriate in an environment where the situation is moderately favorable or certain. When (1) leader-member relations are good, (2) the task is unstructured, and (3) position power is weak.

Examples
Situations like this exists with research scientists, who do not like superiors to structure the task for them. They prefer to follow their own creative leads in order to solve problems. In a situation like this a considerate style of leadership is preferred over the task-oriented.

Figure 1: Least-Preferred Co-Worker Scale (LPC)

Unfriendly 1 Unpleasant 1 Rejecting 1 Tense 1 Cold 1 Boring 1 Backbiting 1 Uncooperative1 Hostile 1 Guarded 1 Insincere 1 Unkind 1 Inconsiderate 1 Untrustworthy 1 Gloomy 1 Quarrelsome 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Friendly Pleasant Accepting Relaxed Warm Interesting Loyal Cooperative Supportive Open Sincere Kind Considerate Trustworthy Cheerful Harmonious

Figure 2: Breakdown of Most Effective Leader Style

Leader-Member Relations
Task Structure Leader's Position Power Most Effective Leader

Good Good Good Good Poor Poor Poor Poor

Structured Structured Unstructured Unstructured Structured Structured Unstructured Unstructured

StrongLow LPC Weak Low LPC StrongLow LPC Weak High LPC StrongHigh LPC Weak High LPC StrongHigh LPC Weak Low LPC

A Joke: Do we use the model?

A major corporation was developing a new management training program for a group of some 2,000 technical managers. A task force with representatives from two divisions in the company came together to decide what should be taught. The representatives from division A had participated in Managerial Grid seminars. They know in their hearts that the grid was the one best way and that it should be the foundation of the seminar. The managers in division B had attended situational management seminars, and their faith in the situational model was equally unshakable.

A Joke: Do we use the model? (cont.)

Initially, the two sides engaged in polite talk and rational argument. When that failed, the conversation gradually became more heated. Eventually, the group found itself hopelessly deadlocked. An outside consultant came in to mediate the dispute. She listened while the representatives from each division reviewed the conversation. The consultant then said to the group, Im impressed by the passion on both sides. Im curious about one thing. If you all believe so deeply in these models and if it makes a difference which models someone learns, why cant I see any difference in the behavior of the two groups? Stunned silence fell over the room. Finally one member said, You know, I think hes right. We dont use the damn models, we just preach them. That was the end of the impasse.