Approaches to contingency model

Fred E. Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership effectiveness was based on studies of a wide range of group effectiveness, and concentrated on the relationship between leadership and organizational performance. This is one of the earliest situation-contingent leadership theories given by Fiedler. According to him, if an organization attempts to achieve group effectiveness through leadership, then there is a need to assess the leader according to an underlying trait, assess the situation faced by the leader, and construct a proper match between the two. Leader’s trait In order to assess the attitudes of the leader, Fiedler developed the ‘least preferred co-worker’ (LPC) scale in which the leaders are asked about the person with whom they least like to work. The scale is a questionnaire consisting of 16 items used to reflect a leader’s underlying disposition toward others. The items in the LPC scale are pleasant / unpleasant, friendly / unfriendly, rejecting / accepting, unenthusiastic / enthusiastic, tense / relaxed, cold / warm,

helpful / frustrating, cooperative / uncooperative, supportive / hostile, quarrelsome / harmonious, efficient / inefficient, gloomy / cheerful, distant / close, boring / interesting, self-assured / hesitant, open / guarded. Each item in the scale is given a single ranking of between one and eight points, with eight points indicating the most favorable rating.

Friendly									Unfriendly
	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1

Fiedler states that leaders with high LPC scores are relationship-oriented and the ones with low scores are task-oriented. The high LPC score leaders derived most satisfaction from interpersonal relationships and therefore evaluate their least preferred co-workers in fairly favorable terms. These leaders think about the task accomplishment only after the relationship need is well satisfied. On the other hand, the low LPC score leaders derived satisfaction from performance of the task and attainment of objectives and only after tasks have been accomplished, these leaders work on establishing good social and interpersonal relationships.

Situational factor

According to Fiedler, a leader’s behavior is dependent upon the favorability of the leadership situation. Three factors work together to determine how favorable a situation is to a leader. These are:

• Leader-member relations - The degree to which the leaders is trusted and liked by the group members, and the willingness of the group members to follow the leader’s guidance
• Task structure - The degree to which the group’s task has been described as structured or unstructured, has been clearly defined and the extent to which it can be carried out by detailed instructions
• Position power - The power of the leader by virtue of the organizational position and the degree to which the leader can exercise authority on group members in order to comply with and accept his direction and leadership

With the help of these three variables, eight combinations of group-task situations were constructed by Fiedler. These combinations were used to identify the style of the leader.

Figure 1: Correlation between leader’s LPC scores and group effectiveness

Leadership Effectiveness

The leader’s effectiveness is determined by the interaction of the leader’s style of behavior and the favorableness of the situational characteristics. The most favorable situation is when leader-member relations are good, the task is highly structured, and the leader has a strong position power.

Research on the contingency model has shown that task-oriented leaders are more effective in highly favorable (1, 2, 3) and highly unfavorable situation (7, 8), whereas relationship-oriented leaders are more effective in situations of intermediate favorableness (4, 5, 6).

Fiedler also suggested that leaders may act differently in different situations. Relationship-oriented leaders generally display task-oriented behaviors under highly favorable situations and display relationship-oriented behaviors under unfavorable intermediate favorable situations. Similarly, task-oriented leaders frequently display task-oriented in unfavorable or intermediate favorable situations but display relationship-oriented behaviors in favorable situations.

Cognitive resource Theory model

The Cognitive Resource Theory main claim is that various sources of stress are blocking the use of rationality in leadership. The more cognitively acute and experienced a leader is, the more she or he is able to overcome the effects of stress. Command, though, is the factor that overcomes the effects of stress. As for experience is the main factor enabling leadership under stress. Intelligence is more effective in less stressful situations. However, the leader's ability to think is more effective when her or his style is more orderly, premeditated and authoritarian. If the leader is similar to the average of a group, effective leadership will come from consensus-oriented approaches. In terms of objectives, the less complicated the tasks a group needs to do, the less of a need there is for an intelligent and experienced leader
.
Pro's

• Cognitive Resource Theory is a constant reminder of the hubris of intelligence. Stress is common in leadership situations, and this theory emphasizes how it limits even an intelligent person's ability to lead.
• The theory helps predict whether a certain type of person will be able to lead in a stressful situation.
• A specific model exists with the theory that allows testing in multiple environments and with making predictions.
• The theory helps the placement of persons in leadership positions by suggesting that people be tested for intelligence and the ability to manage stress in addition to assessing leadership qualities.

Con's

• Intelligence is not defined. There are many types and degrees of intelligence and the Cognitive Resource Theory doesn't account for them.
• The nature of tasking itself is not addressed. There are many types of objectives a group may need to achieve and each may involve a different level of stress and hence, require a different leadership method.
• Many types of stress exist; one cannot simply say "stress". For example, there is psychological and physical stress and each has its inhibiting effects that the theory does not account for.
• Stress often is measured subjectively, this in the face of the many measurable effects in the cognitive, psychological and physical domains. Without a quantitative evaluation instrument, it is difficult to create research instruments to evaluate the theory.

Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Model

The situational leadership model, developed by Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard, suggests that the leader’s behaviour should be adjusted according to the maturity level of the followers. The level of maturity or the readiness of the followers were assessed to the extent the followers have the ability and willingness to accomplish a specific task. Four possible categories of followers’ maturity were identified:

R1 : Unable and Unwilling

R2 : Unable but Willing

R3 : Able but Unwilling

R4 : Able and Willing

The leader behaviour was determined by the same dimensions as used in the Ohio studies, viz. production orientation and people orientation. According to the situational mode, a leader should use a telling style (high concern for task and low concern for people) with the least matured group of followers who are neither able nor willing to perform (R1). A selling style of leadership (high concern for both task and relationship) is required for dealing with the followers with the next higher level of maturity, that is those who are willing but unable to perform the task at the required level (R2). The able but unwilling followers are the next matured group and require a participating style from the leader, characterized by high concern for consideration and low emphasis on task orientation. Finally the most matured followers who are both able and willing requires a delegating style of leadership. The leader working with this kind of followers must learn to restrain himself from showing too much concern for either task or relationship as the followers themselves do accept the responsibility for their performance.

Though this theory is difficult to be tested empirically, it has its intuitive appeal and is widely used for training and development in organizations. In addition, the theory focuses attention on followers as a significant determinant of any leadership process.

The Path Goal Theory

In the recent time, one of the most appreciated theories of leadership is the path-goal theory as offered by Robert House, which is based on the expectancy theory of motivation. According to this theory, the effectiveness of a leader depends on the following propositions:

♦ leader behaviour is acceptable and satisfying to followers to the extent that they see it as an immediate source of satisfaction or as instrumental to future satisfaction

♦ leader behaviour is motivational to the extent that (1) it makes the followers’ needs satisfaction contingent or dependent on effective performance, and (2) it complements the followers’ environment by providing the coaching, guidance, support, and rewards necessary for realizing the linkage between the level of their performance and the attainment of the rewards available.

The leader selects from any of the four styles of behaviour which is most suitable for the followers at a given point of time. These are directive, supportive, participative, and the achievement-oriented according to the need and expectations of the followers. In other words, the path-goal theory assumes that leaders adapt their behaviour and style to fit the characteristics of the followers and the environment in which they work. Actual tests of the path-goal theory provides conflicting evidence and therefore it is premature to either fully accept or reject the theory at this point. Nevertheless the path-goal theory does have intuitive appeal and offers a number of constructive ideas for leaders who lead in a variety of followers in a variety of work environments.