Cari Hochbein
Both, contingency theory and the situational approach place focus on context. However, the applications of each can look very different. Contingency theory holds that a leader will be most effective when then the situation matches a leader’s dominant style (Northouse, 2007). However, the situational approach suggests that an effective leader will adapt their style to meet the needs of a situation (Williams, 2016). Consider the following scenario. Jane is a high-level director approaching retirement, and her organization is currently interviewing to fill her position. Jack is high-performing mid-level manager, hoping to secure the promotion.
Jack has served as a manager, on Jane’s team, for 5 years. Jack’s current role is highly structured, operating on tight deadlines and budgets. He currently manages a diverse group of team members, that work on a variety of projects. He has proven to thrive in high-pressure extreme situations, through the achievement of goals. Errors have potential to cost the company a lot of money. Therefore, performance is easily measured. Jack’s direct reports have demonstrated high levels of commitment and loyalty, making for a friendly work environment. Jack’s team respects his decision-making power, as he is responsible for most performance reviews and hiring/firing decisions. The success that Jack has had in his supervisory role seems to make him a natural choice for promotion.
Jane’s role is more conceptual. She serves as a liaison between clients and her team. Although she oversees a team that is motivated by the achievement of highly structured tasks, she is not personally involved with day-to-day task-management. Instead, she is motivated by a responsibility to maintain positive client relationships. She communicates client expectations to the team, suggests effective strategies, and reports a plan back to client. However, exact methods and proper execution is entrusted to Jack. Therefore, Jane only maintains limited control. In addition, she delegates most hiring and firing decisions to Jack, because he is more closely tied to job-specific performance. Lastly, Jane operates within the same positive and friendly work environment, as Jack.
Two weeks after an interview, Jack receives a rejection letter stating that the organization has decided to hire a candidate that is “better suited for the role”. How is it possible that such a high-performing employee is not promoted?
According to Northouse (2007), the application of contingency theory can offer explanations about appropriate person-job fit. Northouse (2007) describes Fiedler’s (1967) leader-match contingency theory as, “a framework for effectively matching the leader and situation” (p. 113). The theory assumes that a leader will be dominant in one style, which is categorized as either, task motivated or relationship motivated (Northhouse, 2007). Style is measured according to Fiedler’s (1967) Least Preferred Coworker scale, by means of self-report questions. The score correlates with one’s views about their least favorite co-worker (Northouse, 2007). A high LPC score represents a relationship motivated leader, that views their least favorite coworker more favorably. A low LPC score signifies a leader who places greater focus on task achievement, and believes their least favorite coworker serves as a barrier to personal achievement. A mid-level LPC score, is characteristic of a socio-independent leader, “not overly concerned with tasks or how others view them” (Northouse, 2007, p. 123).
The framework considers leadership style (LPC scores) in relation to three categories of situational variable including leader-member relations, task structure, and position power (Northouse, 2007). Good leader-member characterize a positive situation, with high levels of commitment and loyalty. In contrast, a volatile environment, riddled with negativity and low levels of commitment, would be defined as poor leader-member relations (Northouse, 2007). Secondly, a highly structured task is characterized by clear and attainable goals, with a defined path to achieving specific solutions (Northouse, 2007). The final situational variable is position power, defined as either strong or weak, dependent on the amount of legitimate power required by the situation (Northouse, 2007). Northouse (2016) describes legitimate power as the influence that is held through “formal job authority” (p. 10). The unique combination of these variables will define a situation as either favorable, unfavorable, or moderately favorable. Fiedler (1967) has identified 8 possible outcomes, or categories, which dictate whether the situation is best suited for a high, low, or mid-level LPC score (Northouse, 2007). This framework can be applied to the situation of Jack and Jane, to help explain why Jack’s promotion may have been rejected.
Because Jack is task oriented, with a high need for achievement, he would probably receive a low LPC score (Northouse, 2007). The situational variables associated with Jack’s current role correspond with a (Category 1) favorable situation. Category 1 is characterized by a highly structured task, good leader member relations, and strong position power (Northouse, 2007). This category is on the extreme end of the spectrum, and best suited for those with a low LPC score, such as Jack (Northouse, 2007). A leader with a low LPC score is said to be highest functioning in extreme situational categories, requiring either the most or least amount of control (Northouse, 2007). This may explain Jack’s ability to perform under extreme conditions, with complete control of highly structured tasks. Therefore, Jack’s current success could be due to the match of his task motivated style, with an appropriate combination of situational variables. However, his task-oriented style will not be a predictor of success, in Jane’s role, due to a different mix of situational variables.
The situational variables associated with Jane’s role can be characterized as a (Category 4), associated with low task structure, positive leader-member relations, and weak position power (Northouse, 2007). According to contingency theory, this role is best suited for someone that is relationship-oriented with a high LPC score, which disagrees with Jack’s dominant style (Northouse, 2007). In addition, this role requires one to forfeit some areas of control, while maintaining control of client relationships. High LPC leaders are said to be most effective in moderate situations, that are neither “completely under their control, nor out of their control” (Northouse, 2007, p. 115). However, this situational variable conflicts with Jack’s tendency to thrive under extreme conditions with high levels of control. Therefore, contingency theory may deem Jack’s style unfit for the situational variables of this role.
Contingency theory holds that a leader’s dominant style, can predict how effective they will be in a given situation (Northouse, 2007). The recommendation is to place leaders according to the demands of the situation, avoiding situational variables that do not match their dominant style (Northouse, 2007). Therefore, it could be assumed that the hiring manager recognized Jack’s task-oriented nature, as well as his preference for high levels of control and measureable goals. One of the limitations of contingency theory is that is cannot explain causation (Northouse, 2007). Therefore, we do not know why Jack’s style will not be a good fit for the role. However, it is simply understood and generally accepted that certain styles are not as effective within the constraints of certain situational variables (Northouse, 2007).
What can leaders do to combat being “pigeon-holed” into a limited range of roles? To optimize marketability, leaders can learn to apply a variety of skills, behaviors, and leadership styles. Although contingency theory suggests that most leaders demonstrate a dominant style, the situational approach suggests the most effective leader will learn to adapt their style, according to the needs of the situation (Northouse, 2007; Northouse, 2016). The ability to grow and change also correlates with the recommendations of the skills approach. Katz (1955) suggests that learning to shift focus, between appropriate skill-sets, is a necessary adjustment as one advances in leadership (Northouse, 2016). Therefore, both the skills and situational approaches support the notion of learning and adapting, according to the requirements of a role (Northouse, 2016).
From the situational approach, Jack would not be measured on his dominant style, but rather his ability to appropriately utilize a variety of styles to meet the needs of the situation and followers (Northouse, 2016). Therefore, the hiring manager could offer Jack the promotion, on the condition that he effectively demonstrates an ability to manage followers with both directive and supportive styles (Northouse, 2016). In fact, Jack may already be using an appropriate mix of supporting, directing, and coaching styles to manage his current group of diverse team members (Northouse, 2016). Therefore, it seems limiting to only characterize his style as either task motivated, or relationship motivated.
Although contingency theory can provide reason for rejection, the theory is not intended to hold leaders back. Fiedler suggest the benefit to avoiding roles, for which we are not a good fit, is that we are spared unnecessary stress and and anxiety (Northouse, 2007). However, this is only one illustration of the theory. On the contrary, someone may be promoted on the strength of their dominant style, as it is seen a good fit for the existing situational variables. I only used this example to demonstrate a difference in application, between contingency theory and the situational approach.
Therefore, in order to be most marketable, a leader should recognize the best situational fit for their dominant style, while being open to the possibilities of adopting new styles. Growth and change will be a likely part of career advancement. Therefore, instead of only preparing a resume and cover letter, a leader should learn to prepare for a variety of contexts and situations. The act of doing so may help all leaders to avoid the dreaded words, “I’m sorry, but we’ve found a better suited candidate”.
References
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Katz, R.L. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33(1), 33-42.
Northouse, P.G. (2007). Contingency Theory. Leadership: Theory and practice, (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 113-126. Retrieved from https://reserve-libraries-psu-edu.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/psy/532/53201.pdf
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice,(7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Williams, J. (2016). Lesson 6: Contingency Theory. Retrieved from
https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/su16/psych485/001/content/06_lesson/03_topic/01_page.html