ADM Leadership Lecture 6 – Contingency Theory

Introduction The most widely recognized contingency theory is Fiedler’s. Leader-match theory which tries to match leaders to appropriate situations. Contingency theory is concerned with styles and situations. The most widely recognized contingency theory is Fiedler’s. Leader-match theory which tries to match leaders to appropriate situations. Contingency theory is concerned with styles and situations.

Contingency Theory of Leader Effectiveness

Leadership Styles Task motivated vs. relationship motivated. To measure styles, Fiedler developed the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale. High scores are relationship motivate; low scores are task motivated. Task motivated vs. relationship motivated. To measure styles, Fiedler developed the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale. High scores are relationship motivate; low scores are task motivated.

Situational Variables Leader-member relations. –Group atmosphere (good versus poor). Task structure. –Requirements stated, paths have few alternatives, completion is clear, limited number of correct solutions (High structure versus low structure). Position power. –Formal power to reward or punish followers (Strong versus weak power). Leader-member relations. –Group atmosphere (good versus poor). Task structure. –Requirements stated, paths have few alternatives, completion is clear, limited number of correct solutions (High structure versus low structure). Position power. –Formal power to reward or punish followers (Strong versus weak power).

How Does the Model Work? Certain styles will be effective in certain situations. Task motivated (low LPC) will be effective in very favorable or very unfavorable situations. Relationship motivated (high LPC) will be effective in moderately favorable situations. Certain styles will be effective in certain situations. Task motivated (low LPC) will be effective in very favorable or very unfavorable situations. Relationship motivated (high LPC) will be effective in moderately favorable situations.

How Does the Model Work? Determine the nature of the situation (good or poor relations, high or low structure, strong or weak formal power). Calculate LPC score. Examine match between situation and leadership style. Make necessary adjustments. Determine the nature of the situation (good or poor relations, high or low structure, strong or weak formal power). Calculate LPC score. Examine match between situation and leadership style. Make necessary adjustments.

Strengths Supported by empirical research. Forces us to consider impact of situation on leaders. Supported by empirical research. Forces us to consider impact of situation on leaders.

Strengths Predictive and prospective. Does not require leaders to be effective in all situations. Provides data on styles that can be used by organizations. Predictive and prospective. Does not require leaders to be effective in all situations. Provides data on styles that can be used by organizations.

Criticisms Does not explain clearly why some styles are effective in some situations. LPC scale challenged on face validity, correlation with other leadership scales, and difficulty of completion. Does not explain clearly why some styles are effective in some situations. LPC scale challenged on face validity, correlation with other leadership scales, and difficulty of completion.

Criticisms Cumbersome to use in real world. Does not provide corrective measures when there is a mismatch. Often difficult to change styles or restructure situations. Cumbersome to use in real world. Does not provide corrective measures when there is a mismatch. Often difficult to change styles or restructure situations.

Applications Can be used to determine sources of ineffective performance. Can be used to predict performance in a new position (situation). Can be used to pinpoint changes in a position to ensure a match between style and situation. Can be used to determine sources of ineffective performance. Can be used to predict performance in a new position (situation). Can be used to pinpoint changes in a position to ensure a match between style and situation.

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. 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 task-oriented leaders. 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 task-oriented 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. 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. 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. Stress and anxiety interfere with careful and thoughtful analysis and creativity. Prior training provides a fallback point for the experienced.

Contingency Approach to Decision Making Two principles of normative decision- making 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. Two principles of normative decision- making 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.