“Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (Northouse, 2016, p.6). Sometimes, leading a group of individuals may require different behaviors and styles depending on the situations, tasks, structures, followers’ competence, and followers’ needs. Situational theories believe that leadership effectiveness is reliant on a leader’s ability to influence followers in various work environments. However, not all situational leadership methods assume that leaders’ behaviors can change, and that all leaders can be effective in all situations. Contingency Theory argues that leaders have dominant behavioral tendencies, and certain situations where they can be more effective than others (Fiedler, 1976; Cited in PSUWC, 2017), but this theory has received criticism over the years. The major complaints are that it lacks flexibility, and it fails to explain what organizations should do if there was a mismatch between the leader and the situation (Northouse, 2007). This author recommends organizations should train the managers who are unable to adapt to other leadership behaviors/styles with a more flexible situational theory, namely, the path-goal theory. This post aims to define contingency theory, explain its shortcomings with an example, describe path-goal theory, and why path-goal theory is more flexible than contingency theory.
Contingency theory suggests that leaders are most effective when their dominant behaviors/styles are matched with the right situations. This theory’s framework begins with a leadership style evaluation using Fiedler’s Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale (Fiedler, 1976). The high LPC spectrum describes relationship motivated leadership style, and the low LPC spectrum represents task motivated style (Northouse, 2007). After the leader analysis, the next stage is unfolding the situation based on three factors: leader-member relations, task structure, and position power. First, the good leader-member relationship includes high degree of confidence, trust and loyalty, whereas the opposite relationship can contain frictions and unfriendly interactions (Northouse, 2007). Next assessment is task structure, which varies depending on the degree of task requirements and demonstration clarity, and the number of alternatives and solutions. For example, a manufacturing job to pack finished goods into a box has high task structure, because the manager can provide instruction and demonstration with few alternative options and solutions. On the other hand, a manager who leads many consultants on multiple complex projects may have less control on each member’s tasks. This situation has low task structure. The third factor is characterizing a leader’s legitimate power to exercise rewards or punishment. The stronger the position power a leader has, the more authority he or she has to make important decisions such as firing or promoting an employee. The final step of the contingency theory is identifying a leader’s effectiveness by matching his or her LPC score with the three situation variables. The theory suggests leaders who are task motivated can be effective in the two extreme situations in the three dimensions, whereas the relationship motivated leaders are more effective in moderately favorable situations: some relation, task, and power certainties.
As we can see, the contingency theory confines an individual’s leadership style to very specific situations, which is very inflexible. According to Fiedler (1995; Cited in PSUWC, 2017), if we mismatched the leader with a wrong situation, their leadership would be ineffective due to stress, anxiety, and immature reactions. Unfortunately, situations may change in an organization from time to time, and it is unlikely an organization can afford to hire a new leader every time the situation changes. For example, a small factory, SC (pseudonym), in rural America has three reliable task motivated shift managers. The lead-member relations are positive, tasks are highly structured, and each manager has strong authority. Everything has been running smoothly for years. Since the new President has been elected, there have been some frictions between the white and minority workers due to the new administration’s immigration policies. The worker conflict hinders cooperation and productivity. As the leader-member relations deteriorate, while the other two situational factors remain the same, the situation becomes moderately favorable. It now requires relationship motivated leaders to smooth the members’ anxiety, but it is impossible to hire and train three new managers. The contingency theory fails to provide solutions for how to improve or modify leaders’ behaviors in evolving conditions. A better solution for this organization is to teach their managers the path-goal theory and develop other leadership styles.
The path-goal theory is designed to assist leaders in creating a path for each follower to achieve specific goals in workplace. The leaders’ role is helping their followers to avoid obstacles in meeting their goal by providing emotional support and complements, or supplementing what is missing in the work environment (PSUWC, 2017). When the subordinates achieve their goals, each follower would receive a reward they value, which would increase the employee’s satisfaction. This theory suggests that effective leaders should “[select] specific behaviors that are best suited to followers’ needs and to the situation in which followers are working” (Northouse, 2016, p.116).
There are three major components that can increase a leader’s effectiveness: follower characteristics, task characteristics, and leader behaviors. The first component consists of two groups of follower variables. According to Northouse (2016), the first set of characteristics (e.g., needs for affiliation, preferences for structure, and desires for control) determines whether the leader’s behaviors would result in the satisfaction of the followers. The other group of variables measure the followers’ self-perception of their capabilities to accomplish the goals. These sets of characteristics affect the leader because his or her leadership behavior can influence the followers’ motivation.
The next step of path-goal theory is task characteristic evaluation, which includes the design of the task, the authority system of the organization, and the primary work group of the subordinates (PSUWC, 2017). The path-goal theory suggests that a leader may choose one or more appropriate leadership behavior/s depending on followers’ satisfaction levels and needs, and whether the task variables are clear and repetitive or ambiguous, unclear, and challenging.
Lastly, the leader behaviors have four types: directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented leaderships. The directive leaders provide task instructions, create timelines, sets performance standards, and form clear rules (PSUWC, 2017). They are more effective at managing authoritative subordinates, and ambiguous and complex responsibilities. On the other hand, the supportive leaders are personable, and care about the followers’ needs for affiliation. A repetitive and unchallenging work environment is best suited for supportive leaders. The third type of leaders are participative and encouraging. They invite subordinates to join the decision-making process. The followers who enjoy self-reliance and work in an unstructured environment are the better match for participative leaders. Finally, some followers are highly self-motivated and exhibit high confidence in accomplishing goals, who can take on complex and challenging tasks. These subordinates should be paired with achievement-oriented leaders who can constantly challenge the followers to achieve the highest standards of excellence.
The contingency theory suggests that leaders are only effective when they are matched with the right employees and situation. Hiring leaders with a specific leadership style for certain appropriate jobs can only be sustainable if the situation never changed. As we established earlier, however, people and situations can change swiftly and often. When the situation changes or deteriorates, these leaders’ abilities and skills would immediately become ineffective, which can hinder employees’ productivity and satisfaction. On the other hand, the path-goal theory emphasizes that leaders can adapt one or more types of leadership at any point in time depending on the subordinates and the situations’ requirements (PSUWC, 2017). This versatile approach to leadership can increase leaders’ effectiveness in most situations. Therefore, this author recommends that organizations like SC factory to teach their managers the path-goal theory.
References:
Fiedler, F. E. (1976). The leadership game: Matching the man to the situation. Organizational Dynamics, 4(3), 6-16. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(76)90032-2
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2017). Lesson 6: contingency and path theories. Retrieved from PSYCH485: Leadership in work settings: https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/canvas/sp17/21711–17327/content/06_lesson/printlesson.html