Chapter 3 Contingency Approaches to Leadership
3-1 The Contingency Approach
Contingency means that one thing depends on other things, and for a leader to be effective
there must be an appropriate fir between the leader’s behavior and style and the conditions in
the situation. A leadership style that works in one situation might not work in another
situation. There is no one best way of leadership. Contingency means “it depends”.
Contingency approaches seek to delineate the characteristics of situations and followers and
examine the leadership styles that can be used effectively. Two basic leadership behaviors
that can be adjusted to address various contingencies are task behavior and relationship
behavior.
3-2 Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Theory
Situational theory is Hersey and Blanchard’s extension of the Leadership Gris focusing on the
characteristics of followers as the important element of the situation, and consequently, of
determining effective leader behavior. The theory asserts that subordinates exhibit varying
levels of readiness; those with low readiness due to lack of ability, training, or confidence
require a distinct leadership approach compared to those who are highly ready and skilled.
3-2a Leader Style
Situational theory suggests four leadership styles: telling, selling, participating, and
delegating, based on relationship and task concerns, with appropriate style based on follower
readiness.
- The telling style (S1) is a very directive approach that reflects a high concern for
tasks and a low concern for people and relationships. The leader provides detailed
objectives and explicit instructions about how tasks should be accomplished.
- The selling style (S2) is based on a high concern for both relationships and tasks.
With this approach, the leader provides task instruction and personal support, explains
decisions, and gives followers a chance to ask questions and gain clarity about work
tasks.
- The participating style (S3) is characterized by high relationship and low task
behavior. The leader encourages participation, consults with followers, and facilitates
decision making.
- The delegating style (S4) reflects a low concern for both tasks and relationships. This
leader provides little direction or support because complete responsibility for
decisions and their implementation is turned over to followers.
3-2b Follower Readiness
The appropriate leadership style is determined by the readiness level of followers, which
ranges from low (R1) to very high (R4). Hersey and Blanchard’s situational theory
emphasizes the need for leaders to assess a follower’s readiness, considering their education,
skills, experience, self-confidence, and work attitudes, to select an appropriate leadership
style.
- R1 low readiness: When one or more followers exhibit very low levels of readiness,
the leader has to use a telling style.
- R2 moderate readiness: When followers lack some skills or experience for the job
but demonstrate confidence, ability, and willingness to learn, a selling leadership style
works well.
- R3 high readiness: When followers have the necessary education, skills, and
experience but might be insecure in their abilities and need some encouragement from
the leader, a participating style can be effective.
- R4 very high readiness: When followers have very high levels of ability, experience,
confidence, and willingness to accept responsibility for their own task behavior, the
delegating style of leadership can be effectively used.
3-3 Fiedler’s Contingency Model
Fiedler and his associates developed a model that takes not only followers but other elements
of the situation into consideration. Although the model is somewhat complicated, the basic
idea is simple: Match the leader’s style with the situation most favorable for their success.
Fiedler’s contingency model was designed to enable leaders to diagnose both leadership
style and organizational situation.
3-3a Leadership Style
The cornerstone of Fiedler’s theory examines whether a leader's style is relationship-oriented
or task-oriented. Relationship-oriented leaders focus on people, establishing trust and
listening to employees’ needs, while task-oriented leaders prioritize task completion, offering
clear directions and performance standards. Leadership style is assessed using the least
preferred coworker (LPC) scale, which includes 16 bipolar adjectives rated on an eight-point
scale. Positive descriptions of a least preferred coworker indicate a relationship-oriented
leader, whereas negative descriptions suggest a task-oriented leader.
3-3b Situation
Fiedler’s model identifies three key elements influencing leadership situations: leader-
member relations, task structure, and position power. Leader-member relations reflect the
trust and respect subordinates have for their leader, with positive dynamics indicating a
favorable scenario. Task structure denotes the clarity of tasks, where well-defined tasks are
favorable to leaders, while ambiguous, creative tasks are less so. Position power refers to the
leader's formal authority, with higher authority creating a favorable context. An ideal
leadership situation arises when all three elements are strong, while a negative environment
exists when all are weak. Intermediate states of favorability occur when some elements are
strong and others are lacking.
3-3c Contingency Theory
Fiedler found that task-oriented leaders are effective in highly favorable situations, while
relationship-oriented leaders are more effective in moderate favorability situations. Strong
task orientation doesn't affect leader-member relations.
Fiedler's contingency theory posits that relationship-oriented leaders perform best in
situations of moderate favorability due to the importance of human relations skills in
enhancing group performance. Leaders must identify their style (relationship or task-
oriented) and assess the favorability of the situation regarding leader-member relations, task
structure, and position power.
While Fiedler's model has been supported by research, it faces criticism for its simplistic
measurement of leadership styles and the arbitrary determination of situational weights.
Additionally, it lacks clarity on whether task-oriented leaders remain effective over time in
changing situations and overlooks the potential effectiveness of medium LPC leaders who
balance relationship and task concerns. Nevertheless, the model's significance lies in
prompting further exploration of situational factors in leadership studies.
3-4 Path–Goal Theory
According to path–goal theory, leaders enhance follower motivation to achieve personal and
organizational goals by clarifying the path to rewards or increasing valued rewards. Path
clarification involves guiding subordinates in identifying behaviors that lead to success, while
increasing rewards means understanding whether followers prefer intrinsic or extrinsic
rewards. This contingency theory emphasizes the need for leaders to adapt their behaviors
based on their style, the followers, and the situation to effectively meet followers' needs.
3-4a Leader Behavior
The path–goal theory suggests a fourfold classification of leader behaviors.22 These
classifications are the types of behavior the leader can adopt and include supportive,
directive, achievement-oriented, and participative styles.
- Supportive leadership shows concern for subordinates’ well-being and personal
needs. Leadership behavior is open, friendly, and approachable, and the leader creates
a team climate and treats subordinates as equals. Supportive leadership is similar to
the consideration or people-oriented leadership described earlier.
- Directive leadership tells subordinates exactly what they are supposed to do. Leader
behavior includes planning, making schedules, setting performance goals and
behavior standards, and stressing adherence to rules and regulations. Directive
leadership behavior is similar to the initiating structure or task-oriented leadership
style described earlier.
- Participative leadership consults with subordinates about decisions. Leader behavior
includes asking for opinions and suggestions, encouraging participation in decision
making, and meeting with subordinates in their workplaces. The participative leader
encourages group discussion and suggestions, similar to the coaching or supporting
style in the Hersey and Blanchard model.
- Achievement-oriented leadership sets clear and challenging goals for subordinates.
Leader behavior stresses high-quality performance and improvement over current
performance. Achievement-oriented leaders also show confidence in subordinates and
assist them in learning how to achieve high goals.
3-4b Situational Contingencies
The path–goal theory identifies two key situational contingencies: the personal characteristics
of group members and the work environment. Personal characteristics include followers'
abilities, skills, needs, and motivations, determining the type of leadership required, such as
directive leadership for those needing clear guidance or participative leadership for those
seeking autonomy. The work environment encompasses task structure, the formal authority
system, and work group characteristics, which influence how leadership is exercised and how
tasks are defined and executed.
3-4c Use of Rewards
Leaders must clarify the path to rewards for followers and increase rewards to improve job
performance. They can help subordinates acquire skills or develop new rewards. Four
examples illustrate how leadership behavior can be tailored to specific situations: supportive,
directive, achievement-oriented, and participative. Fitting leadership behavior to situational
contingencies leads to greater employee effort.
3-5 The Vroom–Jago Contingency Model
The Vroom–Jago contingency model is a contingency model that focuses on varying
degress of participative leadership and how each level of participation influences the quality
and accountability of decisions. The Vroom–Jago contingency model outlines participative
leadership and its impact on decision quality and accountability.
It addresses how situational factors influence the effectiveness of either participative or
autocratic approaches. The model assists leaders in determining when to involve team
members in decision-making processes. It emphasizes the importance of the appropriate level
of follower participation for specific decisions, consisting of three key components: leader
participation styles, diagnostic questions, and decision rules.
3-5a Leader Participation Styles
The model outlines five levels of follower participation in decision-making, ranging from
autocratic to democratic. The decision styles include:
1. Decide: The leader makes the decision alone.
2. Consult individually: The leader seeks individual suggestions before deciding.
3. Consult group: The leader gathers group input before deciding.
4. Facilitate: The leader helps the group reach a decision.
5. Delegate: The group is allowed to make the decision within set limits.
These styles are chosen based on the situational context.
3-5b Diagnostic Questions
Leaders determine which of the five decision styles to use based on situational factors,
including the required decision quality, leader or follower expertise, and the necessity of
follower commitment. They can assess the appropriate level of participation by answering
seven diagnostic questions.
1. Decision significance: How significant is this decision for the project or
organization? If the decision is highly important and a high-quality decision is needed
for the success of the project or organization, the leader has to be actively involved.
2. Importance of commitment: How important is subordinate commitment to carrying
out the decision? If implementation requires a high level of commitment to the
decision, leaders should involve subordinates in the decision process.
3. Leader expertise: What is the level of the leader’s expertise in relation to the
problem? If the leader does not have a high amount of information, knowledge, or
expertise, the leader should involve subordinates to obtain it
4. Likelihood of commitment: If the leader were to make the decision alone, would
subordinates have high or low commitment to the decision? If group members
typically go along with whatever the leader decides, their involvement in the decision-
making process will be less important.
5. Group support for goals: What is the degree of subordinate support for the team’s or
organization’s objectives at stake in this decision? If group members have low support
for the goals of the organization, the leader should not allow the group to make the
decision alone.
6. Goal expertise: What is the level of group members’ knowledge and expertise in
relation to the problem? If subordinates have a high level of expertise in relation to
the problem, more responsibility for the decision can be delegated to them.
7. Team competence: How skilled and committed are group members to working
together as a team to solve problems? When subordinates have high skills and high
desire to work together cooperatively to solve problems, more responsibility for the
decision making can be delegated to them.
3-5c Selecting a Decision Style
Further development of the Vroom–Jago model introduced time constraints and follower
development as key factors in decision-making styles. Leaders must balance urgency with the
growth of team members when making decisions. This resulted in two decision matrixes: a
time-based model for critical situations requiring immediate decisions and a development-
based model for scenarios where follower skill enhancement is prioritized. The models guide
leaders through a series of diagnostic questions to determine an appropriate participation
style. An example illustrates using the time-saving model for urgent issues, navigating the
matrix from problem statement to conclusion based on situational responses.
The Vroom–Jago decision-making model evaluates decision significance based on two
primary questions: the significance of the decision for the organization and the importance of
subordinate commitment. A high significance leads to assessing the leader's expertise,
followed by the likelihood of subordinate commitment, ultimately directing leaders to either a
Decide style (making decisions alone) or an employee development-driven style (involving
subordinates). Time and efficiency can influence the decision style, with autocratic decisions
saving time, while involving the group fosters development. The model has been criticized
but offers valuable guidance for leaders to adapt their decision-making styles to
circumstances, enhanced by a computer program for increased complexity and precision.
In the Whitlock Manufacturing case, both timesaving and employee development decision
models can guide leadership styles. Weinstein’s concern for team involvement warrants an
analysis via the employee development-based decision tree. This model indicates high
significance for the decision, with a critical need for quality and team commitment. Team
members respect Weinstein, suggesting high commitment, while their expertise is likely low,
leading to a recommended Consult Group decision style per the Vroom–Jago model. If
Weinstein prioritized efficiency over development using the timesaving-based model, the
recommended decision style may differ, requiring a comparative analysis of expertise to
determine consistency with earlier conclusions.
3-6 Substitutes for Leadership
The contingency leadership approaches highlight the influence of a leader's style, follower
characteristics, and situational factors. The final approach indicates that certain situational
variables can replace or diminish the necessity for leadership, illustrating organizational
contexts where task-oriented or people-oriented styles are irrelevant or not required.
A substitute for leadership makes the leadership style unnecessary or redundant. Unlike a
substitute, a neutralizer counteracts the leadership style and prevents the leader from
displaying certain behaviors.
Situational variables affecting leadership include follower characteristics, task nature, and
organizational environment. Highly professional followers, such as research scientists,
require less leadership direction. Structured tasks necessitate a task-oriented approach, while
satisfying tasks require a people-oriented style. In cohesive organizations, like those
involving air traffic controllers, peer interactions can substitute for leadership. Leaders should
tailor their style to complement organizational dynamics; for example, bank tellers, with high
formalization and structured tasks, should focus on a people-oriented approach instead of task
orientation. This adaptation helps avoid leadership overkill.
Research on substitutes for leadership has identified that situational factors can sometimes
have a more significant impact on outcomes like employee satisfaction than leader behaviors
themselves. This concept suggests that organizations can be designed to enhance these
substitutes, effectively complementing or replacing leadership. For instance, when followers
possess strong skills and training, these attributes serve as a substitute for leadership. The
premise of this research is that effective leaders recognize and provide support beyond what
is already available through tasks and organizational structures.
