Contingency Models of Leadership

Simply possessing certain traits or performing certain behavior does not ensure that a
manager will be a effective leader in all situations calling for leadership. Some
managers who seem to possess the right traits and perform the right behaviors turn out
to be ineffective leaders. Managers lead in a wide variety of situations and organizations
and have various kinds of subordinates performing diverse tasks in a multiplicity of
environmental contexts. Given the wide varity of situations in which leadership occurs,
what makes a manager an effective leader in one situation( such as certain traits or
behaviors) is not necessarily what that manager needs to be equally effective in a
different situation. An effective army general might not be an effective university
president; an effective restaurant manager might not be an effective clothing store
manager; an effective football team coach might not be an effective fitness center
manager; and an effective first-line manager in manufacturing company might not be an
effective middle manager. The traits or behaviors that may contribute to a managers
being effective leader in one situation might actually result in the same manager being
an ineffective leader in another situation.
Contingency models of leadership take into account the situation or context within which
leadership occurs. According to contingency models, whether or not a manager is an
effective leader is the result of interplay between what the manager is like, what he or
she does, and the situation in which leadership takes place. Contingency models
propose that whether a leader who possesses certain traits or performs certain
behaviors is effective depends on, or is contingent on, the situation or context. In this
section we discuss three prominent contingency models developed to shed light on
what makes managers effective leaders: Fred Fiedlers contingency model, Robert
Houses path-goal theory, and the leader substitutes model. As you will see, these
leadership models are complementary; each focuses on a somewhat different aspect of
effective leadership in organizations.
Fiedlers Contingency Model
Fred E. Fiedler was among the first leadership researchers to acknowledge that
effective leadership is contingent on, the characteristics of the leader and of the
situation. Fiedlers contingency model helps explain why a manager may be effective
leader in one situation and ineffective in another; it also suggests which kinds of
managers are likely to be most effective in which situations.
Leader Style As with the trait approach, Fiedler hypothesized that personal
characteristic can influence leader effectiveness. He used the term leader style to refer
to a managers characteristic approach to leadership and identified two basic leader

styles: relationship-oriented and task-oriented. All managers can be described as having

one style or the other.
Relationship-oriented leaders are primarily concerned with developing good
relationships with the subordinates and being liked by them. Relationship-oriented focus
on having high-quality interpersonal relationships with subordinates. This does not
mean, however, that the job does not get done when such leaders are at the helm. But it
does mean that the quality of interpersonal relationships with their subordinates is a
prime concern for relationship-oriented leaders.
Task-oriented leaders are primarily concerned with ensuring that the subordinates
perform at a high level and focus on task accomplishment. While task-oriented leaders
also may be concerned about having good interpersonal relationships with their
subordinates, task accomplishment is their prime concern.
Situational Characteristics According to Fiedler leadership style is an enduring
characteristic; managers cannot change their style, nor can they adopt different styles in
different kinds of situations. With this in mind, Fiedler identified three situational
characteristics that are important determinants of how favorable a situation is for
leading: leader-member relations, task structure, and position power. When a situation
is favorable for leading, it is relatively easy for a manager to influence subordinates so
they perform at a high level and contribute to organizational efficiency and
effectiveness. In a situation unfavorable for leading, it is much more difficult for a
manager to exert influence.
Leader-Member Relations The first situational characteristic Fiedler described, leadermember relations, is the extent to which followers like, trust, and are loyal to their
leader. Situations are more favorable for leading when leader-member relations are
good.
Task Structure The second situational characteristic Fiedler described, task structure, is
the extent to which the work to be performed is clear-cut so that a leaders subordinates
know what needs to be accomplished and how to go about doing it. When the task
structure is high, the situation is favorable for leading. When task structure is low, goals
may be vague, subordinates may be unsure of what they should be doing or how they
should do it, and the situation is unfavorable for leading.
Task Structure was low for Geraldine Laybourne when she was a top manager at
nickelodeon, the childrens television network. It was never precisely clear what would
appeal to her young viewers, whose taste can change dramatically, or how to motivate
her subordinates to come up with creative and novel ideas. In contrast, Herman
Mashaba, founder of Black Like Me, a hair care products company based in south
Africa, seemed to have relatively high task structure when he started his company. His

company goals were to produce and sell inexpensive hair care products to native
Africans, and managers accomplished these goals by using simple yet appealing
packaging and distributing the products through neighborhood beauty salons.
Position Power The third situational characteristic Fiedler described, position power, is
the amount of legitimate, reward, and coercive power a leader has by virtue of his or her
position in an organization. Leadership situation are more favorable for leading when
position power is strong.
Combining Leader Style and the Situation By considering all possible combinations of
good and poor leader-member relations, high and low task structure, and strong and
weak position power Fiedler identified eight leadership situations, which vary in their
favorability for leading. After research, he determined that relationship-oriented leaders
are most effective in situations 4,5,6,7 and task oriented are most effective in situations
that are either very favorable 1, 2, 3 or very unfavorable 8.
Putting the Contingency Model into Practice Recall that, according to Fiedler, leader
style is an enduring characteristic that managers cannot change. This suggests that for
managers to be effective, either managers need to be placed in leadership situations
that fit their style or situations need to changed to suit the managers. Situations can be
changed, for example, by giving a manager more position power or taking steps to
increase task structure, such as by clarifying goals. Take the case of Mark Compton, a
relationship-oriented leader employed by a small construction company, who was in a
very unfavorable situation and was having a rough time leading his crew. His
subordinates did not trust him to look out for their well being (poor leader-member
relations); the construction jobs he supervised tended to be novel and complex (low
taks structure); and he had no control over rewards and disciplinary actions his
subordinates received (weak position power) Recognizing the need to improve matters,
Comptons supervisor gave him the power to reward crew members with bonuses and
overtime work as he saw fit and to discipline crew members for poor quality work and
unsafe on-the-job behavior. As his leadership situation improved to moderately
favorable, so did Comptons effectiveness as a leader and the performance of his crew.
Research studies tend to support some aspects of Fiedlers model but also suggest
that, like most theories, it needs some modifications. Some researchers have
questioned what the LPC scale really measures. Others find fault with the models
premise that leaders cannot alter their styles. That is, it is likely that at least some
leaders can diagnose the situation they are in and, when their style in inappropriate for
the situation, modify their style so that it is more in line with what the leadership situation
calls for.