2. Contingency Theories of Leadership Pertemuan 23 & 24
Matakuliah : L0244 – Psikologi Kepemimpinan
Tahun : 2010
Contingency Theories of Leadership Pertemuan 23 & 24

3. Introduction
Leadership is contingent upon interplay of all three aspects of the leader-follower-situation model.
Similarities between the four theories:
They are theories rather than personal opinions.
They implicitly assume that leaders are able to accurately diagnose or assess key aspects of the followers and the leadership situation.
With the exception of the contingency model, leaders are assumed to be able to act in a flexible manner.
A correct match between situational and follower characteristics and leaders’ behavior is assumed to have a positive effect on group or organizational outcomes.
Bina Nusantara University

4. The Normative Decision Model
The level of input subordinates have in decision-making can, and does vary substantially depending on the issue.
Vroom and Yetton maintained that leaders could often improve group performance by using an optimal amount of participation in the decision-making process.
The normative decision model is directed solely at determining how much input subordinates should have in the decision-making process.
Bina Nusantara University

5. Normative Decision Model – Levels of Participation
The normative decision model was designed to improve some aspects of leadership effectiveness.
Vroom and Yetton explored how various leader, follower, and situational factors affect the degree of subordinates’ participation in the decision-making process and, in turn, group performance.
A continuum of decision-making processes ranging from completely autocratic to completely democratic was discovered.
Bina Nusantara University

6. Decision Quality and Acceptance
Vroom and Yetton believed decision quality and decision acceptance were the two most important criteria for judging the adequacy of a decision.
Decision quality: Means that if the decision has a rational or objectively determinable “better or worse” alternative, the leader should select the better alternative.
Decision acceptance: Implies that followers accept the decision as if it were their own and do not merely comply with the decision.
Bina Nusantara University

7. Vroom and Yetton’s Leadership Decision Tree
Bina Nusantara University

8. Concluding Thoughts about the Normative Decision Model
One could argue that questions could or should be placed in another part of the model.
There are no questions about the leader’s personality, motivations, values, or attitudes.
The Leader-Follower-Situation framework organizes concepts in a familiar conceptual structure.
No evidence to show that leaders using the model are more effective overall than leaders not using the model.
The model also:
Views decision making as taking place at a single point in time.
Assumes that leaders are equally skilled at using all five decision procedures.
Assumes that some of the prescriptions of the model may not be the best for the given situation.
Bina Nusantara University

9. Factors from the Normative Decision Model and the Interactional Framework
Bina Nusantara University

10. The Situational Leadership Model – Leader Behavior
Task behaviors: The extent to which the leader spells out the responsibilities of an individual group.
Relationship behaviors: How much time the leader engages in two-way communication. Relationship behaviors include:
Listening, encouraging, facilitating
Clarifying, explaining why the task is important, giving support
The relative effectiveness of the two behavior dimensions often depends on the situation.
Bina Nusantara University

11. Situational Leadership
Bina Nusantara University

12. The Situational Leadership Model – Follower Readiness
Follower readiness: A follower’s ability and willingness to accomplish a particular task.
It is not a personal characteristic, but rather how ready an individual is to perform a particular task.
Readiness is not an assessment of an individual’s personality, traits, values, age, etc.
Any given follower could be low on readiness to perform one task but high on readiness to perform a different task.
Bina Nusantara University

13. Prescriptions of the Model
While combining follower readiness levels with the four combinations of leader behaviors, four segments along a continuum emerge.
Along this continuum, however, the assessment of follower readiness can be fairly subjective.
A leader may like to see followers increase their level of readiness for particular tasks through implementation of a series of developmental interventions to help boost follower readiness levels.
Bina Nusantara University

14. Concluding Thoughts about the Situational Leadership Model
The only situational consideration is knowledge of the task, and the only follower factor is readiness.
Situational Leadership is usually appealing to students and practitioners because of its commonsense approach as well as its ease of understanding.
It is a useful way to get leaders to think about how leadership effectiveness may depend somewhat on being flexible with different subordinates.
Bina Nusantara University

15. Factors from the Situational Leadership® Model and the Interactional Framework
Bina Nusantara University

16. The Contingency Model
Although leaders may be able to change their behaviors toward individual subordinates, leaders also have dominant behavioral tendencies.
The contingency model suggests that leader effectiveness is primarily determined by selecting the right kind of leader for a certain situation or changing the situation to fit the particular leader’s style.
To understand the contingency theory, one must look first at the critical characteristics of the leader and then at the critical aspects of the situation.
Bina Nusantara University

17. Least-Preferred Coworker Scale – Motivational Hierarchies for Low- and High-LPC Leaders
Bina Nusantara University

18. Situational Favorability
Situational favorability: Amount of control the leader has over the followers.
The more control a leader has over followers, the more favorable the situation is, at least from a leader’s perspective.
Three sub-elements in situation favorability:
Leader-member relations
Task structure
Position power
Bina Nusantara University

19. Contingency Model Octant Structure for Determining Situational Favorability
Bina Nusantara University

20. Prescriptions of the Model
Bina Nusantara University

21. Factors from Fiedler’s Contingency Theory and the Interactional Framework
Bina Nusantara University

22. The Path-Goal Theory
The underlying mechanism of the path-goal theory deals with expectancy, a cognitive approach to understanding motivation where people calculate:
Effort-to-performance probabilities
Performance-to-outcome probabilities
Assigned valences or values to outcome
Path-goal theory uses the same basic assumptions as expectancy theory.
Bina Nusantara University

23. The Path-Goal Theory (continued)
Leaders:
Leaders may use varying styles with different subordinates and differing styles with the same subordinates in different situations.
Followers:
Satisfaction of followers
Followers perception of their own abilities.
Situation:
Task
Formal authority system
Primary work group
Bina Nusantara University

24. The Four Leader Behaviors of Path-Goal Theory
Bina Nusantara University

25. Interaction between Followers’ Locus of Control Scores and Leader Behavior in Decision Making
Bina Nusantara University

26. Examples of Applying Path-Goal Theory
Bina Nusantara University

27. Factors from Path-Goal Theory and the Interactional Framework
Bina Nusantara University

28. Summary The four contingency theories of leadership:
Normative decision model
Situational leadership model
Contingency model
Path-goal theory
They specify that leaders should make their behaviors contingent on certain aspects of the followers or the situation.
All four theories implicitly assume that leaders can accurately assess key follower and situational factors.
They are all fairly limited in scope.
Bina Nusantara University

29. Reference
Hughes., Ginnett., & Curpy. (2009). Leadership: Enhancing The Lesson of Experience. 6 eds. McGraw-Hill. Boston.
Bina Nusantara University