Style and context, this is the impetus behind Fielder’s contingency theory (Northouse, 2007, p. 113). Predominantly focusing on military organizations, he studied various leaders, assessing their styles, work situations, and effectiveness (Northouse, 2007, p. 113). Working for the Department of Defense, I have had the honor of serving many high-ranking military officers. For this reason, I found it interesting that contingency theory asserts leaders are not influential in all situations because this notion does not align with military leadership training philosophy. Is the nation not readying its forces for all situations?
Contingency theory describes leadership styles as task or relationship motivated (Northouse, 2007, p. 114). Task-motivated leaders focus on completing tasks, and relationship-motivated leaders focus on building relationships (Northouse, 2007, p. 113). Three situational factors further characterize contingency theory: leader-member relations, task structure, and position power (Northouse, 2007, p. 113). Good leader-member ties consist of a positive group atmosphere fostered by trust, loyalty, and confidence (Northouse, 2007, p. 113). Task structure is related to the amount of control the leader has over a given task-based upon how structured it is (Northouse, 2007, p. 113). Finally, position power is the leader’s true power and authority (Northouse, 2007, p. 114).
In the past five years, I have supported a government agency’s executive office where the top position has rotated between two four-star ranked military officers. In my meager opinion, I would declare both successful in this position. However, both executed it quite differently, even though the general situation of the office was nearly identical. It could probably go without saying that the job is fast-paced, high-stress, and with a lot of executive branch level visibility. Again, in my meager opinion, most of the nation underestimates the sacrifices of our military officers.
Four-star Officer A possessed a task-motivated style. He heavily on task structure and position power. In all things – meetings, open forums, emails – he was very detailed and precise when it came to his intentions and executing those intentions. This behavior aligns with contingency theory in that tasks were clear, everyone knew their role, and officer A’s expectations (Northouse, 2007, p. 114). Additionally, if the four stars he wore didn’t make it clear enough, he was not shy to remind people that he was in charge. He did not abuse his positional power such that people resented him for it, but his authority and power lingered in the air at all times. Some followers loved him; some did not – such is the life of any leader.
Four-star Officer B possessed a relationship motivated style and relied heavily on lead-member relations, although he also utilized task structure (comes with the military leader territory, I think). The air around Officer B was clear and positive. It was apparent that his priority was to ensure the well-being and needs of followers were being met within the workplace. Impressive considering this is an agency of tens of thousands of people. This behavior aligns with contingency theory in that the environment was positive, where people trusted and like their leader (Northouse, 2007, p. 114). This officer set precise tasks, but they were less structured than Officer A’s tasking because he left the execution of the tasks open for individual interpretation. This flexibility allowed followers to decide their path in completing tasks. Some followers loved Officer B; some did not – such is the life of any leader.
But, I would say all followers liked officer B, and therein lies the distinction between these two styles. Both officers are incredibly successful, highly decorated, and deeply respected in their services and by the thousands of people they have led. Officer A’s get-it-done style, did get the job done, but many would say they did not feel as personally connected to their work as they did while working for Officer B.
Reference
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Contingency Theory. In Leadership: Theory and practice (pp. 113-126). Los Angeles, California: SAGE.
tln5100 says
One of the things that sticks out to me in your example is how people with low Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) scores, meaning they are task motivated, perform regardless of the situation and those with high LPC scores, meaning they are relationship motivated, perform in moderately favorable situations (Northouse, 2007, p. 115). While leader A, who was a task leader, was not liked as much as leader B, the relationship leader, they likely kept everyone focused on the task at hand, making it clear what the individuals on the team should be focused on.
If there’s one thing I have learned as a leader is there are followers who just came to work and get the job done and some who make their work a larger part of their life. Both can be served by having clear direction on the task at hand. Some crave more and focus on building relationships, but everyone can get by with clear direction.
Based on the fact that both leadership styles worked, I’d assume the team was pretty competent on the tasks they performed. If they weren’t it’s likely Leader B would not have been as successful as they were. Fiedler suggested mismatched leadership styles fail due to the level of stress and reaction to that stress within the leader leading to poor decisions (Northouse, 2007, p. 116).
I think the key to success of assigning a leader to a team through applying the contingency theory is to understand what motivates the team and make sure the leadership style matches that motivation. As Northouse points out, task-oriented people can feel focus on relationships can detract from the task at hand. Relationship oriented people can be drained by too much focus on the task and not enough on relationships (Northouse, 2007, p. 119).