In a perfect world we could assign the perfect leader for the perfect situation. He or she would recognize the path for success and institute the appropriate controls to ensure success was found. This is essentially what the contingency theory promotes. Fielder et al. (1964, 1967, 1987) suggests, “a leader’s effectiveness depends on how well the leader’s style fits the context” (Northouse, 2007, p. 113). In a theoretical world this may me feasible, but budgets, personnel restraints and management structures are not theoretical. They are actual constraints that do not allow for a team of leaders waiting around to be needed. The contingency theory sounds good on paper, but does not work in the real world.
I am going to use my job as an example since it is the only professional experience I know well. My job exhibits every facet of Fielder’s (1964) contingencies. I work for a military organization that has a well-defined positional power structure. I am the chief of the Rescue Swimmer Shop, an E-7 position. I have three E-6’s, six E-5’s and one E-4 working for me and fall along the power structure according to their rank. Although the power structure is well defined, we work as equals for most tasks. We all know who makes the final decisions, but good ideas are not restricted to a certain rank. Position power in the Coast Guard differs from typical position power in that we do not have the ability to “hire and fire or give raises in rank or pay” (Northouse, 2007, p. 115). We are actually taught to rely more on our personal power, which is a combination of our position combined with our ability to develop trust in our ability and good intentions. This could be classified as leader-member relations (Northouse, 2007). This allows us to encourage our men to develop as leaders while still remaining deferent to the person with the official power.
Jobs that carry a high degree of danger seem to encourage strong personal connections among the members within that community, and ours is no exception. We spend a lot of time together aside from work functions. Our families hang out together and we spend most holidays together as one big group. When the guys experience personal troubles they always seem to find their way to my office to talk about it. A person walking through a Rescue Swimmer Shop might be surprised to hear the amount of jokes flying, music playing, goofing off and playing around. This atmosphere is indicative of a positive one in which “subordinates trust, like and get along with their leader” (Northouse, 2007, p. 114), which demonstrates a high degree of leader-member relations.
It seems as though I am making a case for the contingency theory, but here is where I break from its assertions. We have a varying degree of task structure that is highly dynamic due to the nature of our job. Our normal day is well structured and consists of routine tasks, but things change quickly. There are times when the alarm goes off and we have to perform rescues. We go into these situations with very little information so there is no defined plan when we begin those kinds of tasks (two of my guys rescued 7 people Thursday night on two different Hawaiian islands during two different cases, I’m like a proud father). Additionally, we perform many tasks with no defined instructions, such as survival training for all aircrew, public speaking assignments for different schools and media outlets and training for our job that has no structure (eg. heavy surf training. It is just a title with no format. We just wait until we find waves that are raging and then go swim. Or survival training; we have to determine what that means to us. We go backpacking with minimal gear in places are unfamiliar with and try to survive for a few days.)
The problem I have with this theory is it would assert it would take multiple leaders to successfully complete all of the tasks Rescue Swimmers are called to perform. I can tell you the Rescue Swimmer program does not accept tasks being left incomplete or mediocrity and the Coast Guard cannot afford to employ more than one Chief in most cases. The other problem I have is this theory implies leadership is innate and not learned. If a person is member focused, but is dealing with a low structure task, this theory implies he or she will never be able to meet that challenge and it would be necessary to replace him or her with a person more suited for the task (Penn State University World Campus, 2017). I would assert a leader may have higher aptitudes in different categories, but just as the trait approach prescribes, intelligence is the key (Penn State University World Campus, 2017).
A leader does not have the luxury of static environments. They work with people and people will always present unforeseen circumstances. Additionally, it seems as though businesses are trending towards ingenuity. Tech companies hire young, smart people with big ideas and they encourage them to explore those ideas. My job encourages improving processes and working at maximum efficiency. Good ideas are rewarded, not discouraged. For this reason, every workplace is dynamic since making improvements is a low structure activity. It is my assertion a leader may be better suited for certain scenarios, but it is their duty as a leader to learn the necessary techniques needed for success in all forums.
Works Cited
Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications.
Penn State University World Campus. (2017, Jan 9). PSYCH 485: Lesson 6. State College, PA.
Nathan Janicek says
In your example, it would seem like the contingency theory does not always work for the jobs we are placed in. However I can offer a counterpoint. Utilizing the three situational variables or leader member relations, task structure, and position power, the military lifestyle can be applied to the contingency theory. I do agree with you that the situations are fluid and we done necessarily have allot of power to firs someone, but we do have the ability to change around the personnel he have when someone isn’t performing. Maybe not in a small team like yours, but in a larger general military sense we do. I would argue that those with a low LPC score would be the most effective in the military as we are focused on mission accomplishment and task completion above all else.
First looking at leader member relations, for the most part just by the nature of our job, we usually have pretty good relations. Our teams generally trust us to take care of their needs and do our job as Staff Non-Commissioned officers and take care of them. We usually have a high degree of confidence in our good leaders and are loyal to them and the job. If we are doing our job as effective leaders, the service members will also feel a high degree of attractiveness to the leaders (Northouse, 2007, p 114).
While I do agree with you that the task structure may change from time to time depending on the situation, we usually have standard operating procedures to fall back on that can be applied to different situations. Through training we instill these requirements that are clearly stated in our training manuals (Northouse, 2007, p 114). We learn these in the basic schools and are continually relying on these basic principles throughout our careers to apply to different situations. Now I do agree that sometimes situations come out of left field that we are not usually faced with, but we still fall back on specific mission check to ensure we are operating safely and according to procedures. We tend to have a higher degree of task structure in this manner.
Finally, position power is another that we as leaders have. The rank structure in the military ensures that we have some legitimate power that we hold based on our standing in the organization (Northouse, 2007, p 115). We may not be able to give raises in pay easily, but we can surely take it away through things like competency review boards that can cause a service member to lose rank and in effect pay. In order to help to give a raise, we can also put members of our team up for things like meritorious boards to get quicker raises.
Given that these conditions are generally present in most jobs, we can conclude that those individuals with low LPC scores and focused on task completion can generally survive and thrive in the military environment. The Marines may not promise a rose garden, but we can promise mission accomplishment through rigorous training to achieve tsk structure, a clearly defined power structure and position power, and a high degree of leader member relations based on the brotherhood and shared misery we experience together.
Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications.