https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/leadership-theories-situational-theory-contingenc
ID: 414311 • Letter: H
Question
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/leadership-theories-situational-theory-contingency-toshi
As you read the article, consider the following questions:
How is Situational Leadership and Contingency Leadership similar and/or different from one another?
From your point of view is there a distinct preferred approach between these two theories?
Leadership Theories: Situational
Leadership Theory and Contingency
Leadership Theory
Leadership is the social influence that a person of a higher rank or position has over their subordinates (Riggio, 2013). The leader attempts to understand the subordinates that they are in charge of and determine how best to lead them (Riggio, 2013). Researchers have examined the history of leadership for many years (Riggio, 2013). Historians have found that leadership has existed since the beginning of civilization (Stone & Patterson, 2005). Common examples of leaders are biblical patriarchs and Egyptian rulers (Stone & Patterson, 2005). Over the years, there have been many definitions that define leadership. Wren (1995) coined the definition for leadership as a way of gaining compliance, but still being influential to those who work in the company.
A sociologist who had a major impact on the history of leadership was Max Weber (Morgan, 1997). Max Weber was said to have “observed the parallels between the mechanization of industry and the proliferation of the bureaucratic form of organization” (Morgan, 1997, p.17). Max Weber felt that the industry was not fruitful because there was too much bureaucracy in the organization (Morgan, 1997). From Max Weber’s work theories were formed. Max Weber facilitated the formation of the classical management theory (Morgan, 1997). Max Weber set the base for modern management techniques (Morgan, 1997). Situational and contingency leadership theories came a few years after modern management techniques (Wren, 1995). A review of the current research from the perspective of leadership will be done to encompass two current theories in the field of I/O psychology: Situational and Contingency Leadership.
Two Distinct Theories in Leadership
Over the years, researchers have made little effort to distinguish between situational and contingency theories in leadership (Peretomode, 2012). These two theories are theories that many leaders find to be useful to the development of leadership (Peretomode, 2012). Both theories consider the leader and the situation that the leader is in, allowing the leader to develop a guideline to achieve a solution to the existing situation.
Situational Leadership Theory
The situational leadership theory was formed by Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969). These theorists studied the writings of Reddin (1967) to form a clear definition of the theory and published the SLT in 1969. The theory proposed that as the style of supervision change, the level of follower maturity also changes (Ensby, 2005). Follower maturity increases when the style of supervision changes. Ultimately, the success of a supervisor depends on their ability to keep the employees motivated (Ensby, 2005).
Hersey and Blanchard claimed that there was no particular leadership style that effectively studied leader- follower relationship at the time (Bass, 1990). Hersey and Blanchard found that appropriate leadership training helps leaders to adapt to situations and be more forthcoming in their title (Fuchs, 2007). The two theorists recognized that their theory had some resemblance to the Ohio State study. The Ohio State Study sought to discover observable behaviors that leaders exhibit as opposed to looking at individual traits (Fuchs, 2007). This illustrated that “the behavior of the leader could be described as a mix of both dimensions” (Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 2004, p. 93).
Situational leadership theory has four leadership styles (Clark, 1981). The four leadership styles are: telling (S1); selling (S2); participating (S3) and lastly, delegating (S4). A “telling” leadership style requires the leader to give specific directions for the task to be done (Schermerhorn, 2010). A “selling” leadership style requires the leader to encourage the desired performance (Sargeant & Jay 2010). A “participating” leadership style requires the leader to focus on how the relationship can be enhanced (Kapena 2000). A “delegating” leadership style requires the leader to encourage the employees to perform at their best.
After implementing the four leadership styles, leaders will need to determine the maturity level of the employee (Clark, 1981). Hershey and Blanchard's theory identifies four levels of maturity. The level of maturity are (Clark, 1981): M1: Group members lack the knowledge, skills, and willingness to complete the task; M2: Group members are willing and enthusiastic, but lack the ability; M3: Group members have the skills and capability to complete the task, but are unwilling to take responsibility; M4: Group members are highly skilled and willing to complete the task. The leadership styles that are most appropriate for the maturity levels are (Clark, 1981): Low Maturity (M1) - Telling (S1); Medium Maturity (M2) - Selling (S2); Medium Maturity (M3) - Participating (S3); and lastly, High Maturity (M4) - Delegating (S4).
Contingency Leadership Theory
Fred Fiedler formulated the contingency leadership theory to understand the effectiveness of the leader in the organization (Fiedler,1967). Contingency leadership theory was formed to study the personality and characteristics of leaders (Fiedler, 1967). The contingency leadership theory consists of analyzing the leaders effectiveness based on situations that unfold (Fiedler, 1967). At the time of development, the contingency leadership theory was dominant. Fiedler looked to extend the gap in leadership that consisted of traits, skills, and styles of theories (Fiedler, 1967).
The contingency leadership model is based on several steps. The first step in the model is identifying the leadership style of a leader using the Least- Preferred Co- Worker Scale (Fiedler, 1967). If the score is high the leader is relationship oriented. If the score is low the leader is most likely task oriented. The next step is to determine situational favorableness based on three factors: leader-member relations, task structure, and the strength of the leader’s position (Fiedler, 1967). The last step is to determine the most effective leadership style that would apply to the leader (Fiedler, 1967). Once the scale is done a determination is made to see if the leader is a task oriented or relationship oriented leader. According to Riggio (2013), “task- oriented leaders with low LPC scores link a worker’s poor performance with undesirable personality characteristics, whereas relationship-oriented leaders with high LPC scores can separate the least preferred coworker’s personality from the individual’s work performance” (p.350).
In summary, these two theories have explained leadership effectiveness. When addressing the definitions of situational and contingency leadership theory similarities and difference are evident. It is also evident that the two theories take into consideration the key factors in an organization: the leader and employee.
Syntheses of the Two Distinct Theories
Contingency leadership theory is used to understand leadership characteristics that are related to different cultures (Dickson, Castano, Magomaeva, & Den Hartog, 2012). The contingency leadership theory would be useful in understanding the experiences of Caribbean women. Much of the research that is being done currently encompass cross- cultural dimensions (Dickson et al., 2012). Two theorists who have a strong influence on cross-cultural research are Kluckhohn and Strodteck (Dickson et al., 2012). They study cultures as a whole to understand the variance and cultural changes between individual cultures (Dickson et al., 2012). The work of these scholars had a huge impact on current frameworks that looked at culture.
In contrast, some researchers would not say the same for situational leadership theory. According to Fuchs (2007), situational leadership theory could become culturally accepted, but there is a requirement for more testing to be done in different cultural environments. Fuchs (2007) found that there was only one other article written that looked at the situational leadership theory and the application to culture. The journal article was written on situational leadership theory, Situational leadership theory in Taiwan: a different culture perspective Fuchs (2007). It appeared to be one of the few articles besides the dissertation written a few years after, that implements culture into situational leadership theory (Silverthorne, 2000). According to Silverthorne (2000), “Almost all of the published research on situational leadership theory has been conducted in the USA. There is little evidence of research in other Western countries and no evidence of any research conducted in non-Western cultures designed to test the applicability of the SLT” (p. 69). After conducting further research, another dissertation was found, Situational leadership in cross-cultural environments: The relationship between cross-cultural experience, culture training, leadership style, and leader effectiveness in the United States foreign service (Glick, 2001). The researcher wanted to investigate what factors lead to the leader choice of leadership style based on their cross-cultural experience (Glick, 2001). It is unclear exactly the amount of research out there regarding situational leadership and the study culture, but it is clear that the dissertation topic mentioned earlier on Caribbean women in leadership positions will have published research to consider.
Situational leadership and contingency leadership theories follow the premise that the focus is on the leader, employee, and the current situation in the organization (Peretomode, 2012). In the theories, it can be said that the leader is focused on the duties they are responsible for and how their leadership style impacts the relationship that has been formed (Peretomode, 2012).
According to Goodson, McGee, and Cashman (1989), contingency theory forces the leader to understand how they can be effective (Goodson, McGee, & Cashman (1989). Situational theorists are forced to determine when to be directive and other times be empowering (Sims, Faraj & Yun, 2009). This illustrates that leaders have to determine how they will balance their understanding of tasks while at the same time understanding themselves to be effective. This embodies not only the situational approach but also the contingency approach to leadership.
In summary, situational and contingency leadership theory are in sync. Both theories have a way of being in and out of agreement with one another. When considering the dissertation topic earlier, the contingency leadership theory showed that there has been more research done on the area of culture or cross culture as compared to the situational leadership theory. Overall, the two theories are found to be useful in the field of I/O psychology and in organizations.
Conflict of the Theories
According to Peretomode (2012) situational and contingency are similar, but they are not the same. Due to the lack of explanation of the two theories there has been an increase in students and scholars using the terms interchangeably (Peretomode, 2012). According to Peretomode (2012), situational theory is concerned with the leaders behavior based on the followers’ behavior; in contrast, a contingency theory is concerned with the personality traits of the leader. The situational theory is flexible and allows the leader to be flexible with the way they handle situations (Peretomode, 2012). Contingency theory is inflexible and task oriented, requiring leaders to focus more on the task they need to accomplish (Peretomode, 2012). The contingency theory makes it very difficult for leaders to become flexible (Peretomode, 2012).
A major limitation found in research regarding the situational and contingency leadership theories is the lack of academic dissertations that were being published in the 1990’s. Blanchard et al. (1993) reported, "over 50 dissertations, master theses, and research papers have been written using the improved LBA and LBA II” (p.28). Most of those doctoral dissertations went unpublished because they reportedly had limited value to the field (Johansen, 1990). A dissertation within the past nine years that was reviewed, Contingency leadership among African-American male entrepreneurs: A phenomenological inquiry, results showed no difficulty measuring the reliability and validity (Ivy, 2006). After further analysis, it was found that dissertations and journal articles are being written on both leadership theories. Clearly, the assumption that the theories will not hold up well in research is wrong. Both leadership theories have their weaknesses, but they continue to remain recognized in the research world with scholars.
In summary, due to inconsistency with the flexibility of the two theories and the limitations found in the research methods the two theories would not hold up with the current dissertation topic discussed earlier in this paper. The future of the two theories is good, but it will take years of testing and retesting before the two theories can hold up in research. This makes it difficult at this time to make use of both theories for this dissertation.
Future Research on the two distinct theories Situational leadership theory
The future of situational leadership theory remains bright. According to Cooper and Withey (2009), it is imperative that standardized instruments be designed to determine what the task orientation and the relation orientation of leaders could be (Cooper & Withey, 2009). The development of such instruments will allow researchers to test for traits that could be situational strengths (Cooper & Withey, 2009). There is criticism around situational leadership theory, but it continues to be used and is reportedly easy to use and effective by respondents (Avery & Ryan, 2002).
Ventresca (2014) found that the concern for situational leadership theory lies within the leaders today and not with the way research is being done. Leaders are not remaining accountable for conflict when they arise (Ventresca, 2014). The researcher identifies that today’s leaders rather place the conflict on their subordinates, thus making these leaders lack the true essences of the situational leadership theory (Ventresca, 2014). It is up to the leader to help make this theory considerable by adapting these different techniques so the theory can hold up in the research (Ventresca, 2014).
Contingency leadership theory
The future of the contingency leadership theory is changing from bureaucratic to transformational (Houghton & Yoho, 2005). Future research calls for psychological empowerment and self-leadership (Houghton & Yoho, 2005). Psychological leaders and employees need to feel empowered and the best way to do this is to have some form of independence from the leader. As found within the situational leadership theory, contingency leadership theory lacks in the development of an instrument that can be compared to the LPC model (Kennedy & Gallo, 1986). Although contingency leadership theory lacks development within the design of instruments, it remains relevant in leadership. The contingency leadership theory is detailed oriented and attention is always given to the situation and leader (Riggio, 2013).
Currently, a research study that reflects and provides a corrected view on the topic is one written by Leo Donahue. According to Donahue (2013) study on, Culturally diverse organizations: An analysis of situational leadership theory on follower readiness, results showed that there is a need for a reliable diagnostic instrument when using the SLT model. However, it has been recommended that a qualitative study is used when using the SLT model to give more attention to the different cultures. It is clear from an earlier dissertation in this paper that the use of the qualitative research method could minimize question of reliability and validity.
Conclusion
Becoming a leader is a gradual process and takes time. Leaders are prepped and trained to take on the tasks that are set in front of them. When a leader is effective the company will be effective and prosperous. The attitude that the leader exudes can translate into the organization's culture and atmosphere. The leader makes the decisions for a particular situation that could lead the organization in a positive or negative direction. One significant functions of a leader are to relate to their employees.
Leadership theories shape the overall makeup of the organization. Situational and contingency leadership theories have similarities and differences. Both theories have made a strong contribution to the field of leadership but have faced criticism in the research arena. This led to a decline in journal and dissertations in the early 1990s, but recently there has been an increase in studies on both theories. Overall, situational and contingency leadership will continue to make headlines, especially with the increase in research on cross cultures.
References
Avery, G. C., & Ryan, J. (2002). Applying situational leadership in Australia.
The Journal of Management Development, 21(3), 242-262.
Bass, B.M. (1990) Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership (3rd ed.). New York,
NY: Free Press.
Clark, N. A. (1981). Educational leadership: A field test of Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory (Order No. 8110318). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (303025334).
Cooper, W. H., & Withey, M. J. 2009. The strong situation hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13:62-72
Dickson, M. W., Castano, N., Magomaeva, A., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2012). Conceptualizing leadership across cultures. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 483- 492.
Donahue, L. P. (2013). Culturally diverse organizations: An analysis of situational leadership theory on follower readiness (Order No. 3551088). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1287179723).
Ensby, M. (2005). Quality leadership situational style. ASQ World Conference on Quality and Improvement Proceedings, 59, 341-346.
Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw- Hill
Fuchs, T. (2007). Situational leadership theory: An analysis within the European cultural environment (Order No. 3259661). Available from ABI/INFORM Global; Dissertations & Theses @ Capella University; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304722194).
Glick, N. D. (2001). Situational leadership in cross-cultural environments: The relationship between cross-cultural experience, culture training, leadership style, and leader- effectiveness in the United States foreign service (Order No. 3003319). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (250799552).
Goodson, J. R., McGee, G. W., & Cashman, J. F. (1989). Situational leadership theory: A test of leadership prescriptions. Group & Organization Studies, 14(4), 446.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, H. K. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training & Development Journal, 23(5), 26-31.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H., & Johnson, D. E.(2004). Management of organizational behavior: Leading human resources(8th ed.) New Delhi, India: Prentice- Hall of India
Houghton, J. D., & Yoho, S. K. (2005). Toward a contingency model of leadership and psychological empowerment: When should self-leadership be encouraged? Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,11(4), 65-83.
Ivy, M. (2006). Contingency leadership among African-American male entrepreneurs: A phenomenological inquiry (Order No. 3247611). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304913728).
Johanson B.P.(l990).Situation leadership: a review of the research. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 1,73-05
Kapena, S. 2000, How to be a wise leader: principles that work. 3rd edition,
Nairobi, Africa:Paulines Publications
Kennedy, J. K., & Gallo, D. D. (1986). Test-Retest Properties of the Least Preferred
Co-worker(LPC) Score. Journal Of Psychology,120(6), 607.
Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organizations.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Peretomode, O. (2012). Situational and contingency theories of leadership: Are they the same. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 4(3), 13-17.
Pitts, D. W. (2009). Diversity management, job satisfaction, and performance: Evidence from U.S. Federal Agencies. Public Administration Review,69,328-338.
Reddin, W. J. (1967). The 3-D management style theory. Training and Development Journal,21, 8–17.
Riggio, R. E. (2008). Leadership development: The current state and future expectations. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice And Research, 60(4),
Sargeant, A. & Jay, E. (2010). Fundraising management: Analysis, planning and practice. New York, NY: Routledge
Schermerhorn, J. R. 2010, Exploring Management. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Silverthorne, C. (2000). Situational leadership theory in Taiwan: A different culture perspective. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,21(1), 68-74.
Sims, H. P., Faraj, S., & Yun, S. (2009). When should a leader be directive or empowering? How to develop your own situational theory of leadership. Business Horizons, 52(2),149-158.
Stone, A. G., & Patterson, K. (2005). The history of leadership focus. In Servant Leadership Research Roundtable Proceedings. Retrieved from: http://regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2005/stone_history.pdf Ventresca, P. (2014). Situational leadership. Leadership Excellence, 31(9), 13. Wren, D.A. (1994). The evolution of management thought. New York, NY: Wiley
Explanation / Answer
Situational Leadership Theory
Situational leadership is flexible. It was shaped by Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard (Hersey and Blanchard, 1969). Situational leadership adapts to the existing work environment and the needs of the organisation. The leader modifies the style of management to suit the requirements of the organisation. Adaptability is the main key factor in situational leadership. Leaders must be able to adapt new leadership qualities to meet the changing needs.
There are two mainstream models of situational leadership, one described by Daniel Goleman and another by Ken Blanchard and Paul Hershey.
Contingency Leadership Theory
This leadership theory focuses on the viability of the pioneer, which depends on the person’s initiative style and the circumstances one tends to support. The style of leadership is based upon the relationship between the leader and co-worker. The relationship between these two will decide if the leader is to a greater extent is relationship oriented or task oriented person.
Conclusion:
Becoming a leader is a gradual process and takes time. Leaders are trained and prepared to go up against the undertakings that are set before them. At the point when a leader is compelling the organization will be successful and prosperous. The state of mind that the leader settles on the choices for a specific circumstance that could lead the association in a positive or negative heading. One noteworthy elements of a leaders are to identify with their representatives.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.