Contingency Leadership Theories - Term Paper Example

Contingency Leadership Theories Submitted by s: Introduction Contingency theories primarily explain leadership as a situational moderator in the development of effective leadership. According to Nohria and Khurana, (2010), the term contingency means that it is dependent on the relationship between traits and effectiveness outcome and aspects of leadership. Therefore, contingency can be taken to imply that one effective leadership depends on the appropriate fit between the leader’s behavior, style and conditions in the situation in question. It is evident that a style that may work in a situation could be totally useless in another situation hence there is not a best leadership style among the many available styles, (Bryman, 2011; Clegg, 2006; Aitken and Higgs, 2010). This essay critically evaluates the contingency theories with the Vroom–Jago Contingency Model as the main point of argument; other theories include path-goal theory, leader substitute’s theory, the multiple linkage models, LPC contingency theory and cognitive resource theory. The leadership theories explain the connection between leadership styles and their effectiveness in given situations, (Day and Antonakis, 2012; Murugan, 2007). Contingency Theories of Leadership According to Vecchio (2007), the Vroom–Jago contingency model focuses on the variance in the degrees of leadership and brings out the level of participation through its effect on the quality of accountability and decision making in organizations. The theory argument basis on the fact that a number of situational factors contribute to the possibility of participative and autocratic approach in the leadership that leads to the best outcome. This means that, the leaders can efficiently handle the problems that require a solution and the decisions through one leader or a number of leaders. It three components including leader participation styles and a set of diagnostic questions help analyze the decision situation and decision rules, (Shafritz, and Ott, 2005; Donaldson, 2001). Further, the styles selected depends on the significance of the decision, importance of commitment, leader’s expertise, commitment, support goals, goal expertise and team competence (In Gabbay, and In Leenders, 2001). Therefore, the method is crucial in the decision making processes related to conflict resolution among others in an organization. The last preferred coworker model (LPC), on the other hand, basis on the feelings of the individuals towards their preferred coworker. De, Van, Murnighan, and Social psychology and organizations, (2011) argue that the assumption is that the feelings would tell on how the person is likely to relate with others in terms of leadership. Therefore, a high LPC score suggests a lenient person and low LPC a strict person; hence, the knowledge of how one approaches relationships with others reflects their leadership styles. Fred Fielders argument was that the LPC score of a leader and his/her effectiveness depended on the situation of the leader and to this effect; some situations make it easy for the leaders to control things while others do not. Concurrently, a leader member relations, position power and task structure influence the leadership among others, (Northouse, 2004; Hirschhorn and Gilmore, 1992). This simply implies that feelings matter in any leadership strategy. The two theories vary significantly in their approaches to leadership. For instance, compared to the Vroom–Jago contingency, LPC theory leans more towards the leader’s situations other than the levels of participation. According to House, and Aditya, (2009), the key weakness of the LPC is the fact that it does not specify on the leaders needs to become more effective hence offers not enough information for recommendations in leadership training. The path goal theory of leadership seems to bridge the disparity between LPC and the Vroom-Jago Contingency, (Raisch, and Birkinshaw, 2008; Schreyögg and Sydow, 2010). The hypothesis depends on the management behavior impact to the gratification and performance of the juniors. It argues that the leaders should be able to have an effect on the satisfaction and performance of followers in the form of rewards and clear guidelines on how to achieve goals. Primarily, the theory perceives leaders as the motivators of their subordinates through the manner in which they carry out their tasks in the organization, (Shamir, 1999).This argument shows that the path-goal theory uses the expectancy theory approach as a basis in the achievement of its key objectives. In the expectancy theory, believing that one would achieve goals and putting out the best efforts is a key success point on any undertaking, (Van Seters and Field, 1990; Schriesheim and Neider, 1989). The path goal theory has its major focus on the capacity of the leader to establish and strengthen the expectancy theory arguments on its workers. This means that employees with support, directive, participative and achievement oriented leadership increase their expectancy and hence their performance. However, the path goal theory depends on the arguments of the expectancy theory and ignores other significant factors influential to employee performance. Compared to the Vroom–Jago contingency, it lacks on emphasizing the need for personal participation in the leadership process of the particular organization. As a result, there are chances of disconnect between the leaders and the employees since their needs and goals appear mismatched, (Irby, Brown, Duffy and Trautman, 2002). Hence, it is inappropriate in organizations since they yield on effective relationship between employees and leaders. According to Larsson, and Eid (2012), the leadership substitute theory offers a whole new approach to the effective leadership aspect. It argues that aspects in a situation reduce on the importance of leadership. For example, substitutes are the situations that lead employees to behave as the leader desires of them while neutralizers reduce the effects on the employees. Thus, where the leaders substitute’s works, then the leaders are not requires, and vice versa and this is a rare case scenario since leadership can barely be substituted in organizations. Focusing on aspects of the situation that provide task, guidance and incentives to the employees only limits the theory to the key roles of leaders, (Bowie, 2000; Lesage, Dyar and Evans, 2010). For example, supportive leadership could be substituted by cohesive work group and rules and regulations act as neutralizers on the changing workplace. The sources of the supportive aspects comprise of subordinate characteristics, task characteristics and group or organization characteristics (Northouse, 2013). However, scholarly articles argue that there can never be an alternative to leadership and to act as employee motivation strategy although Nichols and Erakovich (2013) and Friedman and Burke (2011) do support the argument. According to the views of Mostovicz, Kakabadse, and Kakabadse, (2009), the multiple-linkage model argues that understanding the intervening variables helps understand how leader’s behaviors influence the performance outcome. This is illustrated through six key intervening variables that are “task commitment, ability and role clarity, organization of work, cooperation and mutual trust, resources and support and external coordination” ( Parent, Olver and Benoit, 2009, p.167). Thus, it emphasizes on how some leadership behaviors and measures increase the subordinate efforts while others reduce their efforts, (Peter, 2004). This means that the aspects of a situation directly influence the intervening variables; for instance, the subordinate efforts and commitment could be a result of nature of the task/job other than the leaders’ actions. Changing the situation can influence the employee’s performances in the long term aspect in respect to leadership strategy in the organization. This could be through reducing constraints, increasing substitutes and reducing the importance of intervening variables, (Subramaniam, Othman, and Sambasivan, 2010). In addition, the theory offers action plans and portrays the realities of leadership situation although it fails in explaining how the different leader’s behaviors interact in effecting the intervening variables. For this reason, the theory is applicable in a vast range of organizations as it offers guideline to the stakeholders as required. An additional observation on the multiple-linkage model is that it focuses on the cognitive resources and how they relate to group performance. Johnson and Fauske (2005) argue that effective leadership, therefore, influences the unit or group performance in determining an interaction among the leader’s traits, behavior and situations. The five theories greatly emphasize on the behavior of the leader and how it influences the subordinates or work performance of the employees. They bring out the fact that a leader has significant influence on the employee’s performance both directly and indirectly, (Armandi, Oppedisano, and Sherman, 2003). As we have seen, Vroom–Jago contingency focuses on the variance in the degrees of leadership and how the level of participation, last preferred coworker model (LPC) basis on the feelings of the individuals towards their preferred coworker and path-goal theory uses the expectancy theory approach. In addition, Austin, (2007) is of the opinion that leadership substitute theory argues that aspects in a situation reduce on the importance of leadership, and multiple-linkage model argues that understanding the intervening variables helps understand how leader’s behaviors influence the performance outcome (Bell and Bush, 20002; Drucker, 2012). Conclusion Primarily, the contingency theories explain how leadership behaviors result in the improvement of employee performances by connecting their behavior with the situations. The nature of the situation, features of the task, employee characteristics and the organizational aspects among others are the major aspects influencing the performance, (Fraser, 2007). However, none of the many presented contingency leadership theories comprehensively present the leadership issue and its relation to the employee’s performance. Regardless, they bring out an understanding on the importance of the leadership behavior and possible influence it has on the employee performance. The Vroom Vroom–Jago contingency model, for example, observes the issue from the degree of leadership and participation perspective, (Decker, 1986). Thus, leadership directly influences the employee performance and success in the workplace. Bibliography Aitken, P., and Higgs, M. 2010. Developing Change Leaders: The Principles and Practices of Change Leadership Development.London: Routledge Armandi, B., Oppedisano, J. and Sherman, H. 2003. Leadership theory and practice: a “case” inpoint. Management Decision. 41(10), p.1076 – 1088 Austin, A. 2007.The Quest for a General Theory of Leadership.Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment Journal., 28(6), p.591 – 592 Bell, L. and Bush, T. 2002. The Principles and Practice of Educational Management. NY: SAGE. Bowie, N. 2000. A Kantian theory of leadership.Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 21(4), p.185 – 193 Bryman, A. 2011.The SAGE handbook of leadership. London: SAGE. Clegg, S. 2006. The Sage handbook of organization studies. London: Sage Publications Day, D. V., and Antonakis, J. 2012. The nature of leadership. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE. De, C. D., Van, D. R., Murnighan, J. K., and Social psychology and organizations. 2011. Social psychology and organizations. New York: Routledge. Decker, P.J. 1986.Social Learning Theory and Leadership.Journal of Management Development. 5(3), p.46 – 58 Donaldson, L. 2001. The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE. Drucker, P. 2012. Managing the Non-Profit Organization. London: Routledge. Fraser, D. 2007. Give me the Child and Ill Give You the Leader. What can attachment theoryteach us about leadership? International Journal of Leadership in Public Services. 3(3),p.42 – 48 Friedman, L. and Burke, R. 2011. Essentials of Management and Leadership in Public Health. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Hirschhorn, L. and Gilmore, T. 1992. The New Boundaries of the “Boundaryless” Company. Harvard Business Review. 70 (3), p. 104 – 115. House, R.J. and Aditya, R.N. 2009.The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo Vadis? Journal of Management.23,(3), pp. 409-473. In Gabbay, S. M., and In Leenders, R. A. J. 2001. Social Capital of Organizations. Bingley:Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Irby, B.J, Brown, G., Duffy, J.A. and Trautman, D. 2002. The synergistic leadership theory.Journal of Educational Administration. 40(4), pp.304 – 322 Johnson, B.L, and Fauske, J.R..2005. Introduction: Organization theory, educational leadershipand educational research. Journal of Educational Administration. 43(1), p.5 – 8 Larsson, G. and Eid J. 2012 An idea paper on leadership theory integration. Management Research Review. 35(3/4), p.177 – 191 LeSage, P., Dyar, J., and Evans, B. 2010.Crew Resource Management: Principles and Practice. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Mostovicz, I.E., Kakabadse, N.K. and Kakabadse, A.P. 2009.A dynamic theory of leadership development.Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 30(6), p.563 – 576 Murugan, S. 2007. Management Principles And Practices. Italy: New Age International Nichols,T.W., and Erakovich, R. 2013. Authentic leadership and implicit theory: a normativeform of leadership? Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 34(2), p.182 –195 Nohria, N., and Khurana, R. 2010. Handbook of leadership theory and practice: An HBS centennial colloquium on advancing leadership. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business Press. Northouse, P. G. 2004. Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage. organizations. Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press. Peter G. 2004. Organizational leadership and chaos theory: Lets be careful. Journal ofEducational Administration. 42(1), pp.9 – 28 Raisch, S and Birkinshaw, J.2008. Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes and Moderators. Journal of Management. 34(3), pp. 375-409. Schreyögg, G. and Sydow, J. 2010. Crossroads: Organizing for Fluidity? Dilemmas of New Organizational Forms.Organization Science. 21(6), p. 1251–1262  Schriesheim, C. A. and Neider, L.L. 1989. Leadership Theory and Development: The Coming? New Phase?Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 10(6), p.17 – 26 Shafritz, J. M., and Ott, J. S. 2005.Classics of organization theory. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Shamir, B. 1999: Leadership in Boundaryless Organizations: Disposable or Indispensable?European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 8(1), p. 49-71. Subramaniam, A., Othman, R. and Sambasivan, M. 2010. Implicit leadership theory among Malaysian managers: Impact of the leadership expectation gap on leader-memberexchange quality. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 31(4), p.351 – 371 Van Seters, D.A and Field, R.H.G.1990. The Evolution of Leadership Theory.Journal of Organizational Change Management. 3(3), p.29 – 45 Vecchio, R. P. 2007. Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in Read More