1
Contingency Theories of Effective Leadership
Chapter 8
Focus of Chapter.
This chapter deals with how leader traits or behaviors are related to
leadership effectiveness in different situations. Specifically, research has shown that
aspects of the situation may either enhance or weaken the effects of a leader's traits
and behaviors. These aspects of the situation that have this effect (enhancing or
weakening the impact of leadership traits and behaviors) are called moderators. They
are called moderators because they "moderate" (change) the strength of the
relationship between leadership traits/behaviors and leadership effectiveness
measures.
Contingency Theories.
Theories that explain leadership effectiveness in terms of situational
moderators are called "contingency theories" of leadership. Contingency implies "it
depends". That is, the size of the relationship between leadership traits/behaviors
and effectiveness outcomes depends (or is contingent upon) aspects of the situation
the leader is in.
This chapter reviews five contingency theories of leadership: path-goal
theory, leader substitutes theory, the multiple linkage model, LPC contingency theory
and cognitive resource theory. In the end, the theme of this chapter is that the effects
of leader characteristics (traits and behaviors) on outcome measures of effectiveness
will either be strengthened or weakened by aspects of the situation. This means, not
all traits and behavior we associate with leadership are effective in all situations.
Some situations call for different approaches and styles than do other situations. You
should be able to provide examples of this.
LPC Contingency Model.
LPC stands for "least preferred coworker". The idea behind this theory is that
knowing how someone feels about their least preferred coworker will tell us
something about the how that person is likely to relate to others (his/her approach to
relationships). A high LPC score suggests a person who is quite lenient (easy going,
not strict) toward others, whereas a low LPC score suggests someone who is critical
(and strict) toward others. LPC theory suggests that knowing how someone
approaches relationships with others will provide information on their leadership
style. For example, a high LPC leader is described as wanting close interpersonal
relationships with others, considerate and supportive (where task objectives are of
secondary importance to maintaining supportive interpersonal relationships). A low
LPC leader is described as wanting to achieve tasks, and considers maintaining
supportive interpersonal relationships as secondary (less important). The research
over the past 25 years suggests that the primary distinction between high and low
LPC leaders, however, is that high LPC leaders value interpersonal success,
whereas low LPC leaders value task achievements.
Situational Variables. Fred Fiedler, the person who came up with the LPC
Contingency Theory, said that the relationship between LPC score and effectiveness
as a leader depends on the situation in which the leader finds him/her-self. Some
situations, says Fiedler, make it easier for leaders to control things than do other
situations. Situations that provide more direct control for the leader are called
2
"favorable situations", and situations that provide for less control are referred to as
"unfavorable situations". Fielder says that there are three key aspects of the situation
that determine how much control the leader has.
1. leader-member relations: the extent to which the leader has the
support and loyalty of subordinates, and whether the relations with
subordinates are friendly and cooperative.
2. position power: the extent to which the leader has authority to
evaluate subordinate performance and give rewards and punishments
3. task structure: the extent to which there are clear, standardized
procedures to accomplish the task; detailed descriptions of the
finished product or service, and objective measures of how well the
task is being performed (high structured jobs).
Leaders will come into situations that differ with respect to these three
aspects. How the situation is described on these three aspects determines
how much "control" the leader has in that particular situation (the "favorability"
of the situation).
Propositions. The theory says that the most favorable situation for the leader
(the situation which is easiest for the leader to have control and influence) is
the one in which: relations with subordinates are good, the leader has much
position power (formal authority), and the task/job is highly structured. The
situation that is least favorable (in terms of providing for leadership control
and influence) is one in which leader-member relations are poor, the task is
highly unstructured, and position power of the leader (formal authority) is low.
The theory predicts that when the situation is either very favorable or very
unfavorable, low LPC leaders (task oriented) will be more effective than high
LPC leaders (relationship oriented). When the situation is neither high nor low
in "favorability", the theory predicts that high LPC leaders (relationship
oriented) will be more effective than low LPC leaders (task oriented).
Research on Theory. Support for this theory is weak, particularly considering
research that has been done in actual organizations.
Conceptual Weaknesses. This theory has been criticized because it does
not tell us specifically (in behavioral terms) what the leader needs to do to
become more effective. It is therefore not helpful in terms of providing
recommendations and training on how to become a more effective leader.
Overall, there is no longer much interest in this theory. To be fair to Fiedler,
and his contingency theory, however, LPC theory was one of the earliest
contingency theories to be offered, and has served to encourage the
development of other contingency theories of leadership.
Path-Goal Theory of Leadership
This theory attempted to explain how the behavior of a leader influences the
satisfaction and performance of subordinates. Basically, the theory says that leaders
lead their people to higher levels of performance by: (a) rewarding their employees
for achieving set work goals and; (b) by clarifying for their workers how to achieve
these goals, while at the same time making it easier for the workers to achieve the
goals (e.g. by providing necessary resources, including tools, skills, technology,
information etc.). Ideally, while leading in this way, leaders also increase the job
satisfaction of their workers. Workers should see that the way they behave to achieve
goals, and obtain their goals, provides them with satisfaction. The workers behavior
and their performance successes should bring them satisfaction. Leaders should
3
clarify the behaviors leading to successful goal attainment, as well as provide the
resources that enable their workers to perform these behaviors.
Explanatory Process. Well, path-goal theory is based on expectancy theory.
You should recall expectancy theory (V.I.E. theory) from MGTO 121 (yes?).
Expectancy theory says that you will be highly motivated to achieve a particular goal
if: (a) you believe that you will receive something you value for achieving that goal;
and (b) you believe that if you put out a good effort you are capable of achieving the
goal (e.g. you have the ability and resources required, and you know what you need
to do in order to achieve the goal). According to path-goal theory, the role of the
leader is to create and strengthen these beliefs among their workers.
Leader Behaviors. According to path-goal theory, there are four things that
leaders can do to create and sustain the beliefs (noted above) in their workers, which
in turn, will motivate their workers to achieve desired work goals.
1. Provide supportive leadership. Give consideration to needs of
subordinates; display concern for their welfare; create a friendly work
climate
2. Provide directive leadership. Clarify for workers what they are
expected to do; make goals clear, as well as show employees how to
achieve these goals; give specific guidance; provide rules and
procedures; schedule and coordinate work activities.
3. Practice participative leadership. Consult with subordinates and take
their opinions and suggestions into account.
4. Practice achievement oriented leadership. Set challenging goals;
insist on performance improvements; emphasize excellence; show
confidence in employees' ability to attain high standards.
Situational Variables. As path-goal theory is a "contingency theory" of
leadership, it predicts that the effect of leader behavior on subordinate satisfaction
and effort depends on aspects of the situation. Aspects of the situation will influence
employee preferences for particular leader behaviors, and therefore will influence the
effectiveness of different leader behaviors.
Major Propositions. Path goal-theory says that when the task/job is
stressful, boring, or dangerous, supportive leadership is most effective. Supportive
leadership increases subordinate effort and satisfaction by increasing self
confidence, lowering anxiety, and lowering unpleasant aspects of the work. In being
supportive, the leader increases the enjoyment of doing the task, and in increasing
employee confidence, also increases the employee's expectancy that he/she will
achieve the desired goal if appropriate levels of effort are given. On the other hand,
the theory says that if the task/job is interesting and enjoyable, then supportive
leadership will be less effective in motivating employees to achieve desired goals
(will have no effect). Path-goal theory introduces other aspects of the situation that
influences (moderates) the effectiveness of leader behaviors. If the task is
unstructured and complex, the subordinates are inexperienced, and there is little
formalization of rules and procedures to guide the work, then directive (task oriented)
leadership will result in higher worker satisfaction and effort. Not knowing how to do a
task/job because it is not well defined, complex, with few rules and procedures, and
having little experience, creates "role ambiguity" (what they are to do, and how to
they are to do it, is "ambiguous" or unclear). As a result, they will have a low
expectancy of success, even if they are prepared to put out much effort. By
decreasing this ambiguity (through providing directive leadership), the leader
increases employee expectancy ("I can achieve this task because I now know how
4
to"), and therefore increases employee satisfaction and effort. Your book shows you
different things a leader can do as a directive leader, to increase worker performance
(see Figure 8, pg. 215). These include reducing role ambiguity, increasing size of the
rewards associated with achieving goals, and strengthening the link/association
between the desired behaviors and the rewards given (e.g. by providing rewards
sooner).
Research on Path-Goal Theory. Research support for this theory is weak
(mixed). Most studies actually find that supportive (relationship oriented) leadership is
positively related to employee satisfaction in almost all situations. However, due to
problems with the research that has been done on this theory, it has not been
adequately tested. More research is needed before we know whether the
propositions (predictions) of the theory are "correct" or not.
Conceptual Weaknesses. Path goal-theory has been criticized for relying
too much on expectancy theory. Expectancy theory attempts to explain motivation
primarily in terms of cognitive (rational) processes, and does not give any attention to
emotional factors (does not consider emotional bonds or affection between leader
and follower, and the influence of such emotions on employee behavior and
performance). Also, ambiguous (unstructured) and complex jobs do not always
create ambiguity, stress or anxiety among employees, requiring directive (task
oriented) leadership. For example, highly trained, professionals (research scientists)
may not require (nor welcome) directive leadership. Clearly, there are limitations to
the path-goal theory of leadership.
Summary. Path-goal theory, like LPC theory, is one of the early contingency
theories of leadership. It has weak and mixed support, but provides helpful insights
for developing better theories.
Leadership Substitutes Theory
This theory says that there are aspects of the situation that can reduce the
importance of leadership. It sorts these aspects into two categories: (1) substitutes
(an aspect of the situation that leads employees to behave in the same way that a
leader would get them to behave and; (2) neutralizers (a neutralizer is something that
lessens the effect of something else). If substitutes for leadership work, then leaders
would not be required. Can situations be designed in such a way that leaders are not
needed, so that the situation gets employees to do what leaders would normally get
them to do? Aspects of the situation that may substitute for leadership include any
characteristic of the subordinate, task or organization that ensures employees
understand their roles, know how to do the work, motivate employees, and provide
for job satisfaction. Neutralizes are any aspects of the task or organization that
prevents the leader from acting in certain ways. If a leader cannot act in the way
he/she wishes to, then this limits (neutralizes) his/her influence. For example, if a
leader has no formal authority (or resources) to reward effective performance, this
limits his/her ability to influence employees. It could be argued that Beijing's influence
over the Chief Executive of Hong Kong (Tung Chee-wha) limits (neutralizes) the
influence he might otherwise have over the Hong Kong public.
Leadership
substitutes theory focuses on aspects of the situation that provide task guidance and
incentives (two things normally provided by a leader). Your textbook lists (Table 8-2;
p. 217) a number of leadership substitutes and neutralizers (subordinate, task and
organization based). For example, a cohesive work group could be a substitute for
supportive leadership (e.g. support being provided by one's work group), whereas
(inflexible) rules and policies preventing a leader from doing what he/she wants to do
5
"neutralizes" (lessens) the impact he/she might otherwise have in changing the way
the work is performed for purposes of increasing efficiencies and effectiveness.
Aspects of the situation that can either substitute for leadership, or neutralize
leadership efforts, can come from: (a) subordinate characteristics; (b) task
characteristics; or (c) group and organization characteristics.
Subordinate Characteristics. When subordinates have much experience or
training, little direction is required because they already have the skills and
knowledge about what to do and how to do it. This would include medical doctors,
airline pilots, accountants, electricians, university professors, and many other
professionals. Not only do they not require much direction, but often they don't want
the direction. Also, mostly professionals are already highly motivated (internally) by
their values, needs and ethics. They do not need to be encouraged by their leader to
do a high quality job.
Task Characteristics. A substitute for instrumental (task oriented) leadership
is a simple, repetitive job. Workers can quickly learn how to do this work without
much training and direction by the leader. When the task provides automatic
feedback on how well the work is performed, the leader does not need to provide
much feedback. Also, if the task is interesting and enjoyable, workers are likely to be
sufficiently motivated by the work itself, without need for the leader to encourage and
inspire them. Likewise, a task that is intrinsically motivating (interesting, enjoyable)
may be a substitute for supportive (relations oriented) leadership, as it provides for its
own satisfaction.
Group and Organization Characteristics. In organizations with detailed
written rules, regulations and policies, little direction is necessary. These rules and
policies serve as a "neutralizer" as well as a "substitute" if they are inflexible. Also,
supportive (relations oriented) and instrumental (task oriented) influence may be
neutralized when subordinates are located geographically at a distance from the
leader, as is the case with many sales representatives. Automatic rewards such as
commissions can substitute for a leader's use of rewards and punishments to
motivate employees. Likewise, limited position power (lack of formal authority) or a
strong labor union can neutralize a manger's use of rewards and punishments to
motivate employees.
Implications for Improving Leadership. Leadership substitutes theory
suggests that the situation can be made more favorable to the leader by removing
neutralizers. Alternatively, one can make the leader less important by increasing the
number of leadership substitutes. Interestingly, a substitute for a formal leader could
be informal leadership (shared among members of a work team). In fact, much of this
is happening today, with middle level managers being released from their jobs and
the workers who they formally managed being given increased responsibility for
managing themselves.
Research on Theory. Research in support of leadership substitutes theory is
mixed (not strong). More research is needed. It seems that leadership may be
important for inspiring people to greater efforts regardless of the situation, but the
specific behaviors that will most inspire will differ depending on
aspects/characteristics of the subordinates, the task, and the organization. This
would mean that leadership can not be "substituted" entirely by simply redesigning
aspects of the situation. Also, even where there are neutralizers, we know that
leaders often act in ways to either eliminate them, change them, or to work around
them, to effect higher levels of performance from their people.
6
Summary. The primary contribution of leadership substitutes theory is that it
has provided insights into how employees might be motivated to work hard (give
greater effort) by means other than through the formal leader. Influence leaders
provide could also come, in part, from work design, reward systems, peer leadership,
and self-management. The leader is only one source of influence on employee
efforts and behavior.
The Multiple-Linkage Model.
This model is shown on page 221 in Figure 8-5. The figure shows leader
behaviors, leading to one or more "intervening variables". Intervening variables are
simply variables that intervene (come in-between) leader behaviors and measures of
leadership effectiveness. So, for example, some leader behaviors will increase
subordinate effort, which in turn result in great sales. To understand better how
leader behaviors influence performance outcomes, it is helpful to study the
intervening variables, according to the multiple linkage model. The model identifies
six intervening variables, including: task commitment, ability and role clarity,
organization of work, cooperation and mutual trust, resources and support and
external coordination (definitions on pages 220-221). Simply, leader behaviors can
influence each of these "intervening variables". Some of these six intervening
variables are more important to performance outcomes than others. The relative
importance of the intervening variable depends on the aspects of the situation.
Aspects of the situation that make an intervening variable particularly important are
listed in Table 8-3 of page 222).
Situational Influences on Intervening Variable. The multiple-linkage model
says that aspects of the situation directly influence the level of each intervening
variable (independently of any influence from the leader). For example, subordinate
effort and commitment may come from the nature of the task/job directly, rather than
from anything the leader does. Two aspects of the situation that influence
subordinate effort are the formal reward system and the motivating properties of the
job itself. Page 222 provides similar examples of where aspects of the situation can
directly influence levels of each of the six "intervening" variables independently of
any influence that the leader might have on the intervening variable. This is similar to
the idea of "leadership substitutes" discussed earlier.
Short Term Actions to Correct Deficiencies. A key prediction from the
multiple-linkage theory is that leader actions (behaviors) that correct deficiencies
(inadequacies) in any one or more of the intervening variables will improve
performance. (Leaders can make-up for low levels in any one of the intervening
variables). An effective leader is one who recognizes deficiencies in one or more of
the intervening variables and does things to make-up for this deficiency. Table 8-4 (p.
225) lists a number of actions (behaviors) a leader can take to improve a deficiency
in each of the six intervening variables of the multiple-linkage model. I view Table 8-4
as potentially very helpful to a practicing leader, who may be looking for ways to
improve work performance. A leader can examine where there are deficiencies in
one or more of the intervening variables, then look at Table 8-5 to consider different
action he/she might take to make up for the deficiency, thereby improving
performance.
The degree to which a leader is able to act in one or more of the ways
suggested in Table 8-5 will depend on many situational factors, including his/her
position power, organizational constraints (policies, rules, resources), technology
available, and legal-contractual restrictions (e.g. labor/union laws). These situational
factors are similar to the "neutralizers" mentioned earlier (see Figure 8-5, box of
7
situational variables appearing on left side of the diagram). Also, the actual effects of
a leader's behavior on performance outcomes will depend on situational factors like
worker skills, traits, experience, task structure (See Figure 8-5, box of situational
variables appearing on right side of the diagram). We know, for example, some
people are more responsive to one type of leadership approach, while others are
more responsive to a different type of leadership approach (may depend on culture,
task, personality etc.).
Long Term Effects On Group Performance. Leaders can make long-term
improvements in performance by changing the situation in a way that makes it easier
for them to influence employee performance. Effective leaders reduce constraints,
increase substitutes, and reduce the importance of intervening variables over which
they can have little influence. See bottom of page 226 for specific ways in which
actions by a leader can make a situation more favorable to their influence, and
longer-term unit performance. You should be able to work comfortably with the
multiple-linkage mode shown on page 221 (Figure 8-5). Not only should you be able
to describe and explain this model, you should be able to give specific examples of
each aspect of the model. Practical application would have you indicating the actions
leader can take directly and indirectly, short-term and long-term, to improve unit
performance. I like this model very much, because I believe it can be very helpful to
leaders in identifying areas in need of attention, and offering behavioral (action)
strategies for improving unit performance.
Evaluation of the Multiple-Linkage Model. This is a more comprehensive
model than the earlier theories presented. This is another reason I like it. I believe it
better portrays the realities of a leadership situation, and offers specific action plans.
It does have weaknesses, however. It does not explain how different leader
behaviors interact in effecting the intervening variables. Likewise, the interaction
among situational variables, and their joint effects, are not clearly specified.
Accordingly, the multiple-linkage model is best considered a useful working
framework for understanding where leadership action is most needed, and in
providing suggested leadership interventions (actions). There is actually little
research on the overall effectiveness of this model, relative to other theories/models
of leadership. It simply provides a useful conceptual framework for leaders to better
diagnose and respond to unit performance shortcomings.
Cognitive Resource Theory.
This theory focuses on how cognitive resources (intelligence and experience)
are related to group performance. This is important, because organizations use
intelligence and experience for selecting managers. According to this theory, the
effect of a leader on unit/group performance is determined by an interaction among
two leader traits (intelligence and experience), one type of leader behavior (directive
leadership) and two aspects of the leadership situation (interpersonal stress and the
nature of the group's task).
Propositions. The theory says that leadership stress will influence
(moderate) the relationship between leader intelligence and subordinate
performance. Under low stress, high intelligence results in good plans and decisions.
Under high stress, there is no relationship between intelligence and the quality of
leader decisions. It is believed that stress interferes with information processing and
decision making. The theory also proposes that stress for the leader also influences
(moderates) the relationship between leader experience and subordinate
performance. Specifically, it predicts that experienced leaders will perform better
under stressful conditions than will less experienced leaders. Experience is related to
8
quality of leader decisions under high interpersonal stress but is unrelated to decision
quality under low stress. According to this theory then, experienced leaders rely most
on intelligence under low stress and rely more on experience under high stress.
Leaders with little experience rely on intelligence in both situations. The theory also
says that leader intelligence and experience contribute to group performance only
when the leader is directive and subordinates require guidance to perform the task
effectively. For a very simple, routine task that subordinates know well, there is
unlikely to be any relationship between leader intelligence and group performance,
even for directive leaders. The rationale behind this propositions is explained on
page 228 of your textbook.
Research on Cognitive Resource Theory. Research generally supports the
idea that intelligence is related more to performance for directive leaders than for
nondirective leaders. It is reasoned that intelligent leaders make up better plans and
action strategies for doing the work than non-intelligent leaders, especially when the
task is complex. Leader's plans and decisions are also usually communicated
through directive behavior.
Limitations of Research. Research for this theory is weak (mixed; some in
support, some studies not in support).
General Evaluation of Contingency Theories of Leadership.
Contingency theories tell us that leader behaviors that result in improved
employee performance often depends on the nature of the situation, as defined by
features of the task, characteristics of the employees, aspects of the organization
(e.g. corporate culture), culture etc.. While no one contingency model has received
strong research support, together they do make us aware that effective leaders adapt
their behaviors and style to meet the differing requirements of changing situational
circumstances.
Applications: Guidelines for Managers
This chapter concludes with a number of guidelines for managers, including:







Use more planning for a long, complex task
Consult more with people who have relevant knowledge
Provide more direction to people with interdependent roles
Provide more direction and briefings when there is a crisis
Monitor a critical task or unreliable person more closely
Provide more coaching to an inexperienced subordinate
Be more supportive to someone with a very stressful task
Each of these guidelines recognize that leader behaviors (solutions) must fit
the requirements of the task, job design (in case of inter-dependent versus
independent work roles), situation (in the case of a crisis versus a period of
calm), and worker characteristics and traits (reliable versus unreliable
employee, stressed versus calm employee, experienced versus
inexperienced employee).
More simply, the most effective leadership behaviors and style meets the
specific requirements of the situation. Leaders must be able to understand the
differing requirements of different situations, and adapt their behaviors
accordingly.