PPA 577 - Leadership
Lecture 2 – Contingency
Theory
The Contingency Model of
Leadership Effectiveness
The Contingency Model of
Leadership Effectiveness
Fred Fiedler (1967) – Leadership is
primarily the exercise of social
influence, therefore, the ease with
which a leader influences his or her
followers should make a big
difference in how “favorable” the
leadership situation is for the leader.
The Contingency Model of
Leadership Effectiveness
Situational favorableness.
Quality of interpersonal relations (good or poor)
– primary consideration.
The clarity and structure of the task (high or
low) – secondary consideration.
Authority available from the formal position of
the leader (strong or weak) – tertiary
consideration.
Fiedler developed eight-fold scale from the
combinations of these variables ranging
from I (favorable situation) to VIII
(unfavorable situation).
The Contingency Model of
Leadership Effectiveness
Situational favorableness measured
against group performance controlling for
LPC (least preferred coworker scale).
In very favorable or unfavorable situations,
low LPC leaders were more effective in
achieving high group productivity.
In moderate situations, high LPC leaders
were more effective.
The Contingency Model of
Leadership Effectiveness
Validity of model.
Criticism on complexity of model.
Criticism of post-hoc nature of model –
accommodates limited data and make
capitalize on chance.
Meta-analysis of many studies confirms
model.
Subsequent studies confirm analysis.
The Contingency Model of
Leadership Effectiveness
Validity of model.
Meaning of LPC.
Psychological distance – unclear.
Value-attitude interpretation.
– Low LPC – Value task accomplishment. Make
more complex, accurate, favorable, and optimistic
evaluations of people and activities that
accomplish the task.
– High LPC – Value interpersonal accomplishment.
Make more complex, accurate, favorable, and
optimistic evaluations of people and activities that
maximize interpersonal relations.
The Contingency Model of
Leadership Effectiveness
Causal explanations of contingency
effects.
High control situations.
High performance expectations gives great
rein to task-oriented leader.
Relationship-oriented leader may be bored
and distracted and engage in irrelevant
activity.
The Contingency Model of
Leadership Effectiveness
Causal explanations of contingency
effects.
Moderate control situations.
Clear task with uncooperative group may
benefit from morale building activities of
relationship-oriented leader.
Task-oriented leader may rush judgment.
Low control situations.
Chaotic situations can be marginally
improved by strong structures of taskoriented leaders.
Cognitive Resource Theory
What are the roles of intelligence and
experience in predicting successful
performance?
No clear results in straightforward
experiments.
Fiedler (1970) concluded that the
major moderating influence was the
level of stress.
Cognitive Resource Theory
Intelligence
If leaders are under a high level of stress,
leader intelligence bears no relationship to unit
success.
Under low levels of stress, leader intelligence is
positively related to unit success.
Experience
If leaders are under a high level of stress,
experience is positively related to unit success.
If leaders are under a low level of stress,
experience has no relationship to unit success.
Cognitive Resource Theory
Stress and anxiety interfere with
careful and thoughtful analysis and
creativity.
Prior training provides a fallback point
for the experienced.
Path-Goal Theory of Leadership
The contingency theory fails describe
the processes by which the leader’s
motivational orientation affects group
processes and outcomes.
One obvious path for leadership
effects is through the psychological
states of the followers.
Path-Goal Theory of Leadership
Path-goal instrumentality.
The motivation to engage in a behavior
was a function of the product of the
person’s perception of the probability
that the behavior would lead to goal and
the perceived importance of the goal.
Path-Goal Theory of Leadership
Evans (1970) - Considerate and
participative supervision enhanced
the subordinate’s perceptions of the
availability of goals associate with
higher order needs (self-esteem,
feelings of accomplishment), but did
nothing to make the subordinate feel
more certain about how to go about
attaining those goals.
Path-Goal Theory of Leadership
House (1971) integrated situational
variables as moderators of the model –
follower’s ability and personality (locus of
control and authoritarianism) and
environmental factors (the task, the formal
authority system, and the nature of the
primary work group).
When task structure is low, subordinates
will respond to a leader’s structuring
behavior, which clarifies the goal and
identifies the path.
Path-goal Theory of Leadership
When task structure is high,
structuring behavior by the leader is
redundant and the behavior would be
perceived as interfering.
Path-goal Theory of Leadership
Consideration behavior would have the
most effect when the task is boring or
repetitive (when structure is high).
Consideration will have no effect if the task
is complex and interesting.
Overall, tests of the model have been
inconsistent.
The model relies too heavily on perceived
behavior.
Characteristics of the subordinate tend to be
ignored.
Contingency Approach to
Decision Making
Two principles of normative decisionmaking model.
High levels of subordinate participation
in decision making increase
commitment, but are costly in time and
effort.
The quality of the information that
contributes to the decision.
Contingency Approach to
Decision Making
Decision strategies.
Autocratic.
Consultative.
Democratic.
Contingency Approach to
Decision Making
Decision models (groups).
Autocratic I – leader makes decision alone
using available information.
Autocratic II – leader obtains information from
subordinates but makes decision alone.
Consultative I – leader shares the problem with
each subordinate separately, seeking
information and advice, but reserving decision
authority.
Consultative II – same pattern, but
subordinates are consulted as a group.
Group II – leader shares the problem with
subordinates in a group and invites them to
participate fully in decision making.
Contingency Approach to
Decision Making
Decision models (individuals).
Autocratic I – leader makes decision alone
using available information.
Autocratic II – leader obtains information from
subordinates but makes decision alone.
Consultative I – leader shares the problem with
each subordinate separately, seeking
information and advice, but reserving decision
authority.
Group I – participative decision making with a
single subordinate.
Contingency Approach to
Decision Making
Situational questions.
Whether the leader or subordinates have
the necessary information to make a
high quality decision.
Whether the subordinates are likely to
be supportive of the decision and
committed to its successful execution.
Whether there is conflict among the
subordinates about the most desirable
solution.
Contingency Approach to
Decision Making
Six base principles of decision making.
If you do not have enough information to make
a good decision, you must get the information
from somewhere.
If the information that you have is not
sufficiently structured to facilitate a clear
decision, you need to seek to help and advice
to clarify and structure the problem.
If you need the acceptance and commitment of
followers to implement the decision and you’re
not sure that you have that acceptance, you
must involve the followers in participative
decision making to enlist acceptance.
Contingency Approach to
Decision Making
Six base principles of decision making.
If followers are not committed to the
organizational goals embedded in the problem,
they cannot be allowed to make the decision,
although their advice should be sought and
considered.
If followers are in conflict over the most
desirable solution, they must be brought
together to allow them to air their opinions
before a decision is made.
Followers should be represented, that is,
solicited and heard, about decisions that affect
them.
The Multiple Influence Model of
Leadership
Contingency model with discretionary
leadership behavior added as a modifying
factor.
Recognition that hierarchical-level,
environmental complexity, technological
complexity, organizational structure
constrain leadership behavior.
Leader’s job is to bridge the gap between
expectations and reality. Greater
complexity increases the gap and reduces
flexibility.
Multiple Linkage Model
Develops intervening variables linking
behavioral, situational, and outcome
variables.
Subordinate effort.
Role clarity and task skills.
Work organization.
Cohesiveness and cooperation.
Resources and support services.
External coordination.
Situational Leadership Theory
Most contingency theories do not take time
into account.
Dimensions.
Psychological maturity.
Commitment.
Motivation.
Willingness to accept responsibility.
Job maturity.
Experience.
Knowledge.
Understanding of task requirements.
Situational Leadership Theory
Scale of overall maturity.
Unwilling and unable.
Willing but unable.
Able but unwilling.
Willing and able.
Situational Leadership Theory
Leader responses to each category.
High directive – low participative (telling).
High directive – high participative (selling).
High participative – low directive (participative).
Low participative – low task (delegative).
As the follower matures, leader moves
from telling to selling to participative to
delegative.
Summary – Contingency Theory