Contingency Theories of Leadership - Coursework Example

Introduction Leaders and managers of today’s complex organizations use different channels to influence employees’ actions (Kotter, 1990). Examples of such channels include enhancing communication in the workplace with staff members and using motivational strategies to ensure that company resources are used effectively to achieve the company’s vision and mission (Kotter, 1990). When implementing strategies to influence employee behaviour, it is imperative evaluate whether the company’s objectives can be met successfully. The extent, to which the objectives are met, however, depends largely on the type of leadership that prevails in the organization. Successful leadership in the organizational setting can be explained using different theories such as, the Great Man theory, or postulates that focus on behavioural characteristics, situational or management, participative and relationship approaches (Kotter, 1990). Specifically, the purpose of this paper is to explore contingency theories as one of the many theories of leadership. Overview of contingency theories of leadership The contingency theory concept was developed in the 1960s by scholars such as Fielder Fredrick. This theory runs contrary to the behavioural and trait theories, both of which perceive leadership as a process of applying one leadership style to all situations (Yukl and Van Fleet, 1992). The contingency theory developed from the realization that leadership success cannot be predicted by isolating a few preferable behaviours or traits. Rather, the success of a leader involves the relationship between leadership effectiveness and the situation perpetuating that success (Merry, 1990). From this perspective, contingency theory holds that a leader’s effectiveness depends on different factors such as the specific situation, the leader’s followers and the leader him or herself. This means that in different situations, leaders must possess different skills, values, and interests (Merry, 1990). For example, leadership styles differ from one situation to another such that a leader in a factory differs from a leader in the bank. Examples of factors that form the basis for the contingency theory include the workplace culture and the type of job performed in the specific organizational setting. Specifically, assumptions that underlie the contingency theory can be described as follows-; (1) Situational contingencies must be well understood for leadership to be successful. (2) Leadership is a process that can be learned in order to achieve effectiveness (Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Bommer, 1996). (3) The requirements of the situation determine the appropriate leadership styles the leader should adopt to be effective in a particular organizational setting. (4) The match or interaction among behaviour or personality, style of leadership, and the situation must exist in order to achieve maximum effectiveness in leadership. Hence, situational factors determine, in part, a leader’s ability to lead. Situational factors such as the behaviours and capabilities of the followers, as well as the preferred style of leadership the leader adopts are some of the important factors that determine success and effectiveness (Heath, 1994). According to Yukl (2010), in contingency theory, no single best way emerges to lead people in any given setting. This is the case, because situations change, and the leadership style must change as the situations change (Yukl, 2010). For example, when a large number of orders are streaming in streaming from customers, the organizational leader/manager must adopt a different leadership style in order to satisfy customers effectively. In this situation, the manager might choose to apply the autocratic leadership style to avoid long discussions and consultations among diverse groups such as sales, marketing, and distribution. As such, the autocratic style of leadership ensures that customer orders are delivered within the required time and with the quality the customer desires. In a critical situation, such as delivering a large number of orders quickly, the democratic and participative styles of leadership would not be appropriate because consultations among teams would delay the delivery of urgent orders as the customers have requested. Based on three criteria, namely task structure, relationships between the leader and other employees, and position power, a match between the leader and the situation can be developed (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer, 1996). Task structure, as applied in contingency theory, refers to the way in which the duties assigned to subordinates are unstructured or structured. The relation between leaders and other members of the organization refers to the degree of respect, trust, and confidence others have towards their leader. The criteria of position power refer to the influence a leader has over certain variables such as hiring and firing, salary increases, and promotions (House, 1991). From the above criteria, it is evident that relationship-oriented leadership can work effectively in a situation where everyone is cooperative. The main ideas behind contingency theories are based on the assumptions that organizations cannot be organized in just one way (Morgan, 2007). Rather, different approaches must be applied to shape the organization in terms of leadership. The appropriate form of leadership, however, is determined by the task environment in which the leader finds him or herself. The other assumption Morgan (41) noted regarding contingency theory is that achieving good fit and alignment between flexibility and rigidity should be the main focus of the leader in any given setting. This means that the leader is most effective when his or her flexibility aligns and fits with the change required in the organization. The other assumption Morgan (2007) postulated regarding contingency theory of leadership is that careful management is required to balance and satisfy internal needs as well as adapt to environmental circumstances. Hence, the leader must be careful to adapt to situations that present themselves in the operational environment in order to achieve a balance between the external and internal needs of the organization (Klein, Ziegert, Knight, and Xiao, 2006). For example, to achieve the required level of profitability in the organization, the leader must remunerate various levels of employees according to the market rate. Such efforts, among others, will motivate employees to work hard and will help reduce employee turnover. Finally, Morgan (2007, 46) held that different “species” or types of organizations are required in different environments. This calls on the leaders to change their leadership styles depending on the environment or situation in which their organizations are based. For example, in the service sector, a leader must adopt relationship-oriented leadership and interactive leadership styles such as collaborative and participative styles of leadership. Adopting such leadership strategies in the service sector helps enhance interactions between the leader and staff members, as well as enhance the interaction between staff members and customers. In contrast, in the military environment, a leader-member relationship strategy would not be appropriate (Hill, 1995). Instead, the hierarchical leadership strategy would work effectively in such an environment. Thus, the contingency theory seeks to explore the flexibility of leadership depending on the situations that surround the leader. Contingency theories of leadership in action Fielder’s contingency theory (1994) Fielder’s (1994) contingency theory is the most extensive and earliest of the contingency theories. It departs from the behavioural and the trait models by holding that performance of the group depend on the leader’s psychological orientation as well as three variables, namely, task structure, the leader’s power position and the group atmosphere. The task structure depends on whether the situation is favourable or not, whereas the leader’s power position helps determine the dimension or direction of the situation. Hence, leadership effectiveness in Fielder’s (1994) contingency theory perspective is only possible when the leader is respected and accepted by the members he or she leads (Hill, 1995). Leadership effectiveness is also possible with highly structured tasks and if the leader has authority and power to manage his subjects. Hersey and Blanchard’s (1991) situational theory Hersey and Blanchard’s (1991) situational theory is another example of a contingency theory that holds that leadership cannot be explained in a single way. Rather, leadership can be explained as being task relevant (Hersey and Blanchard, 1991). Hence, a leader becomes successful when he or she is able to set attainable goals and is-able and willing to take responsibility for the duties and tasks performed in the organization. In addition, a leader is also effective when he or she is able to adapt his or her leadership style to exploit the relevant experience or education of the group of people he or she leads. Using Hersey and Blanchard’s (1991) situational theory, leadership becomes effective when it varies not only with the group or people being led, but also based on the function, task and jobs that must be accomplished (Hersey and Blanchard, 1991). Vroom and Yetton’s (1973) decision participation contingency theory Vroom and Yetton’s (1973) decision participation contingency theory is another example of a contingency theory. This approach holds that the decisions a leader makes in the organizational context depend on several factors such as-; the quality and amount of information the subordinates and the leader hold:-, the acceptance and quality of the decision being pursued; and finally the magnitude of disagreements that prevail among subordinates when discussing alternatives (Smith, 1994). From the three examples of above contingency theory noted, Hersey and Blanchard (1991) situational theory is the most appropriate leadership theory that would help managers become effective (Smith, 1994). The reason for opinion is that Hersey and Blanchard (1991) situational theory is based on different leadership styles and the maturity levels of the leader’s followers. This theory divides leadership styles into different types of behaviours such as delegating, telling, participating, and selling. Delegating- means that the leader passes responsibilities and process to the group or an individual. The leader is involved in the monitoring process, however, and does not shy away from taking responsibilities for the tasks the followers are performing. The leader communicates effectively with subordinates through participatory behaviours in order to maintain high level relationship with followers (House, 1991). Selling and telling involves providing direction and enhancing communication between the leader and the followers. To ensure that the leadership style remains relevant to the situation surrounding the leader, the situational contingency theory advocates for increased awareness of the leader about the various maturity levels his followers embody (Taylor and Hansen, 2005). The leader can identify four maturity levels that can enable him or her understand his or her followers or the people he or she leads. For example, at the first level of maturity (M1), followers that lack specific knowledge and skills are grouped together. Accordingly, the leader understands the types of jobs and duties to allocate to such a group in order to avoid unnecessary conflicts and compromise to job standards in the workplace (Luthans, 2011). Similarly, at the fourth level of maturity (M4), the followers are more experienced and possess the appropriate knowledge to perform their duties effectively. With this understanding, the leader can allocate the most complex and most demanding duties to such a group of followers. Hence, Hersey and Blanchard’s (1991) situational theory is the most appropriate leadership theory that helps managers become effective because it creates an evaluation channel that the leader can use to assess the situation both within and beyond the operating environment (Levet, 1996). In conclusion, contingency theory of leadership holds that leadership cannot be executed in just one way. Rather, leadership depends on the situation at hand; and thus, leaders must adapt and learn to be flexible in their leadership styles. From the above described contingency theories, Hersey and Blanchard’s (1991) situational contingent theory serves as the most appropriate leadership theory that managers can apply to be effective in their leadership styles. This is one of the more effective styles because it presents the leader with numerous opportunities in which to be flexible in leading people and assigning tasks and responsibilities in the workplace. References Heath, L. (1994), Management of corporate communication. Journal of Management Studies, Vol 3, Issue 4, p. 32 Hersey, P., and Blanchard, K. (1991), Management of Organizational Behaviour: Utilizing Human Resources (2nd ed.) New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Hill, L. (1995), Power Dynamics in Organizations. Harvard Business School. London: Harvard University Publishers. House, R. (1991). ‘A Path-Goal Theory of Leadership Effectiveness’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 6, No. 4, pp. 321–38. Klein, K., Ziegert, J., Knight, A. and Xiao, Y. (2006). Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(4): 590-621. Kotter, J. (1990). What Leaders Really Do. Harvard Business Review. Vol 3, No.5, pp.103-111. Levet, H. (1996). The contingency theory of leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Publishers. Luthans, F. (2011) Organisational Behaviour. New York: McGraw Hill Publishers. Merry, E. (1990), A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness. Journal for Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press. Vol 1, No.12: 149-190 Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., and Bommer, W. (1996). ‘Transformational leader behaviours and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviours’, Journal of Management Studies, 22(2): 259-298. Smith, M. (1994), Contingency rules theory, context, and compliance behaviors. Human Communication Research, 10(3): 489-512. Taylor, S. and Hansen, H. (2005), ‘Finding form: Looking at the field of organizational aesthetics’ Journal of Management Studies 42 (6): 1211–1231 Yukl, G. (2010), Leadership in Organizations, Global Edition (7th Edition). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice-Hall, Inc. Yukl, G. and Van Fleet, D. (1992), Theory and Research on Leadership in Organizations. In Dunnette, MD and Hough, LM (eds.), Handbook of Industrial & Organizational Psychology. New York: McGraw Hill Publishers. Read More