The Contingency Theory
After studying the trait and the behavioral leadership theories it became apparent that there’s not a “best leadership style” to be applied in every possible situation. Thus the contingency theories appear as a response to solve this issue. Contingency means “it depends”. In other words, the theory deals with matching a leader style with the context (situation) that the leader faces.
There are several theories or approaches that can be treated as “contingency theories” these are:
- Leadership Continuum Theory, developed by Robert Tannenbaum and Warren Schmidt in the 1950s.
- Path Goal Leadership Theory, developed by Robert House in 1971.
- Normative Leadership Theory, developed by Victor Vroom and Philip Yetton
- Leadership Substitutes Theory, developed by Kerr and Jermier in 1978.
- Multiple Linkage Model, developed by Gary Yukl (1981, 1989)
- Cognitive Resources Theory, developed by Fiedler and Garcia (1987)
- Contingency Theory of Leader Effectiveness, developed by Fred Fiedler (1951)
In this article I’m going to review the “Contingency Theory of Leader Effectiveness” by Fred Fiedler, which is the most renonwed of the Contingency theories and models.
The LPC model
You can say that this model is the basis of all the theory. This model allows the leader to know his major leadership style. In the LPC model the leadership styles are task motivated or relationship motivated (Northouse, 2004).
A Task Motivated leader is primarly concerned with reaching a goal. While a Relationship Motivated leader is concerned with developing close interpersonal relationships.
To figure out which leadership style someone has. Fiedler developed a set of assessment questionnaires that identified the “dominant” leadership style. In a scale that assigned a High LPC score to a relationship oriented style and a low LPC score to a task oriented style.
Graphically a leader style is between these two opposites of a continuum
Once you have measured the LPC and identified the leadership style, you have to match the style with the situation. The question is then: How do you charact erize a situation? Fiedler’s answer to that question was based on three variables :
- Leader-Member Relationships:It’s the strongest of the situational variables. It goes from good to poor. A good relationship is said to be cooperative and friendly. On the other hand, a poor relationship is antagonistic and difficult.
- Task Structure:It’s the second strongest of the situational variables. It goes from structured to unstructured. A structured task is repetitive, routine and unambigous, while an unstructured task is at the opposite.
- Position Power:It’s the weakest variable. It goes from strong to weak. A leader has a strong position power, if he has the right to assign work, reward or punish, hire and fire, give raises, promotions to his employees. On the other extreme of the scale is the weak position power.
So, how does the model work?
Basically it’s as easy as looking at the following chart based on the situational variables and Leadership Styles
In simple terms, one has to identify the situational variables that lead to any of the eight possible situations characterized on the chart. Then according to the situation you can say what particular leadership style is best suited to that situation.
What’s so cool about this model?
The model helps to know if a particular leader will either fit or not into a particular work setting.
Ups and Downs of Situational Leadership
The Up Side
- Lots of empirical research,support the model.
- It shifted the focus towards the leadership context mainly to the link between the leader and situations
- It’s predictive. For a particular situation (any among eight) it tells you what leadership style suits best
The Down Side
- Doesn’t explain how a leader’s LPC score affects group performance.
- The model neglects medium LPC scores. It only considers High and Low LPC leaders, while most of the leader exhibit a medium LPC score.
- Cumbersome to apply. In a particular work setting it might be difficult to identify the situational variables and the leadership style. It’s necessary to assess 4 different variables before applying the model.
- It doesn’t explainwhat an organisation has to do, or need to do when a leader style doesn’t match the situational variables.
Summary
A contingency theory is one that tries to match the leader’s style with the setting or situation the leader is living. In other words, it tries to find a “contingent” (matching) leadership style to a particular work setting.
There are several contingency theories but the most well known is from Fred Fiedler and the LPC (Least Preferred Coworker) Model. This model takes into account the leadership style and 3 situational variables: leader-member relationship, task structure, and position power. With these four factors Fiedler elaborated a model that defines 8 possible scenarios or work settings where only one of the two leadership styles can be succesful on each of the scenarios.
Further Investigation and References
Northouse, P.G. (2004) “Leadership Theory and Practice” (3rd Ed)
Sage Publications
Lussier, R.N.; Achua, C.F. (2004) “Leadership: Theory, Application, Skill Development” (2nd Ed)
South-Western
Yukl, G.A. (2002) “Leadership in Organizations” (5th Ed)
Prentice-Hall
Latest News About Leadership
Sun, 05 Feb 2012 11:08:43 -0800
Tony Abbott is preparing for a ?leadership showdown?? Is someone challenging him for leadership of the Liberal Party? Or is he switching to the ALP and challenging Gillard for leadership of the ALP?
Windsor warns Labor over leadership talk
Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:12:10 -0800
Cross-benchers and the Greens say Labor risks government if leadership speculation continues.
Swan Backs Gillard Over Possible Australian Leadership Challenge
Sun, 05 Feb 2012 05:58:28 -0800
Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has the backing of her Labor Party caucus, according to Treasurer Wayne Swan, amid speculation that Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd is considering a leadership challenge.
Leadership on agenda
Sun, 05 Feb 2012 02:53:05 -0800
JULIA Gillard will try to quell bubbling discontent about Labor leadership at today's caucus brainstorming session.
Forbes Leadership Highlights of the Week: Set for Super Sunday
Sun, 05 Feb 2012 05:47:46 -0800
With the biggest sports event of the year upon us this week, Karl Moore drew leadership inspiration from both Tom Brady and Eli Manning with "Know Your Teammates: Leadership Lessons from the Super Bowl Quarterbacks." Lisa Arthur looked beyond both those stars with her "Super Bowl MVP Prediction: No, Not Brady or Manning. It's Social Media." Dov Seidman let us know who?also neither Brady nor ...
1 comment
[...] Several theories can be referred as contingency theories. A contingency theory is one that tries to match the leader’s style with the context. Then, an effective leader depends (is contingent) on matching the style with his setting. The most renowned contingency theory was developed by Fred Fiedler in the 1960s. He developed a scale (LPC) to rate a leader and define his style. On the other hand, for situations he centers his attention on three variables: leader-member relations, task structure and position power. Together these three variables determined the favorableness of situations in the organization. Matching the favorableness of a situation with a leaders LPC then could predict the efectiveness of a leader. (Want to learn more?, check The Contingency Theory) [...]
Leave a Comment