Contingency

theories of
leadership
By-

Saumya Madan
Meghna jaiswal
CONTINGENCY
THEORY OF

LEADERSHIP
The contingency theory of leadership focuses on how specific
situations affect a leader’s effectiveness and how a leader’s ability to
adapt can be their most important tool in the workplace.
 When analyzing different leadership styles, there are three factors –
traits, behavior, and the situation.
 The contingency theory of leadership emerged in the 1960s.
 Contingency theory calls for a situational approach.It emerged from
real-life experiences of managers and leaders, who found there is no
single approach that works in every situation. Contingency theory
tries to find techniques appropriate for the present situation.
Contingencies are affected by the external and internal environment.
LEADERSHIP
MODELS/THEORIE
S
 Different contingency leadership models explain different
leadership styles.
 Some of the contingency models/theories of leadership are-

- Fiedler contingency model

- situational contingency theory
- Path goal Theory
- Leader-participation model
 These theories have similarities but have their distinct views on

leadership.
THE FIEDLER MODEL
 Fiedler’s Contingency Theory, also known as Fiedler’s Contingency
Model or Fiedler’s Theory of Leadership, states that there is not
one best style of leadership. Rather, the most effective leadership
style for any given situation is one that aligns with the situation at
hand.
 The theory was developed in the 1960s by Austrian psychologist,
Professor Fred Fiedler. He studied leaders’ personalities and
characteristics and came to the conclusion that leadership style,
since it is formed through one’s life experiences, is incredibly
difficult, if not impossible, to change.
 Fiedler believed the right leader must be chosen for each job based
on their skill set and the requirements of the situation. In order to
best match leaders with situations, each leader must first
understand their natural leadership style. Then, they need to
evaluate whether their leadership style is right for the situation.
ELEMENTS OF FIEDLER’S
CONTINGENCY MODEL
 Fiedler determined that a
leaders’ ability to succeed
rests on two factors:
-Natural leadership style
-Situational favorableness

1. LEADERSHIP STYLE
 -Fiedler believes a key factor in leadership success is the individual’s basic
leadership style. He created least preferred co-worker (LPC) questionnaire to
identify that style by measuring whether a person is task or relationship
oriented.
 High LPC = Relationship-oriented leader.
 Low LPC = Task-oriented leader.
2. Situational favourableness

 Fiedler’s model requires us to assess the situation at hand. The

favorability of a situation depends on how much influence and power you
have as a leader.
Situational favorableness is determined by three variables:
 Leader-member relations are all about trust. The more a team trusts their

leader, the higher the degree of leader-member relations and the more
favorable the situation is.
 Task structure refers to the clarity of the tasks required to complete a

project. Higher task structure results in a more favorable situation. The

more clear-cut and precise tasks are, the higher the situation’s task
structure—whereas the vaguer they are, the lower the situation’s task
structure.
 Position power refers to the authority you have over your team as a

leader. If you can reward them, punish them, or tell them what to do, your
position power is high. Higher position power makes the situation more
favorable
LETS UNDERSTAND THE MODEL
BETTER-
Imagine you’ve just been hired as a co-manager of a startup tech company.
The team of 12 has been working together for a little over a year. You were
brought on by the existing manager to help improve the company’s strategy.
 Leader-member relations are poor. As a new manager brought into an

already tight-knit team, there’s bound to be some friction and distrust.

 Task structure is low. The company is still considered a startup, and you

were hired to help establish some structure. At this point, everyone helps
out with everything.
 Leader position power is weak. There’s another manager with more

authority who could veto your decisions, especially as they pertain to the
team.
 According to Fiedler’s Contingency Theory, this scenario calls for a task-

oriented leader. The situation is highly unfavorable and a relationship-

oriented leader would have a very hard time getting anything done.
Advantages of Fiedler’s Contingency Theory :
-It provides a simple way to determine when a leader’s skills are most and least
impactful.
-It encourages leaders to practice self-awareness, an essential quality for
making decisions for a team.
-It’s straightforward—LPC and situational favorableness are both relatively easy
to calculate.

Criticisms of Fiedler’s Contingency Theory :

-It’s far too rigid. If you can’t change the situation at hand, the theory states
that the only option you have is to give up leadership.
-It’s unclear what leaders who fall in the middle range of the LPC test should
do. The theory essentially just says to “figure it out.”
-Self-assessment isn’t always reliable. Even when we try to be self-aware when
completing the LPC test, our egos and biases have a way of interfering, even
subconsciously.
-The theory may discourage leaders who are doing a fine job, especially if they
perceive their leadership style and situation to be at odds when they actually
aren’t.
PATH-GOAL THEORY
 Robert House developed the Path-Goal Theory in 1971. The theory
identified processes that will allow the team members to meet their
objectives. The leader will adjust their behavior and expectation to
improve team productivity. The leader needs to have a flexible
approach. Path-Goal theory identifies four styles of leadership –
 Directive Clarifying leader – the leader explains what they expect
from their team and how to perform the task.
 Achievement Oriented Leader –Leaders will set high goals for their
team, expect their team to meet them. They have complete
confidence in their team’s performance.
 Participative Leader – The leader asks for their team’s inputs before
making decisions.
 Supportive Leader – The leader focuses on ensuring employee
satisfaction.
PATH-GOAL THEORY: ENVIRONMENTAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WORKPLACE.
 Subordinates’ Characteristics
Important personal characteristics include the subordinates’
perception of their abilities and their locus of control. If people
think that they lack ability; directive leadership is the preferable
method to lead them. If a person has the focus of control, then
the participative leadership is preferable. Managers may not be
able to change the personal characteristics or the personnel but
can shape his approach of leading and managing by
understanding them.
 Environmental characteristics of workplace
Task structure and workgroup are the two environmental
factors. When the structure is high, directive leadership is less
effective than when the structure is low. The nature of the work
group also affects leadership behavior. The leader must provide
support in the workgroup is not capable of supporting itself.
SITUATIONAL
LEADERSHIP THEORY
 Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard developed the Situational Theory of
Leadership which focuses on the situation. The situational theory is
also called the Hersey-Blanchard model. It focuses on the maturity
level of your team members. Hersey and Blanchard leadership style
has four styles –
-Telling or directing
-Selling or coaching
-Participating or supporting
-Delegating
 Individual or group performance readiness level – According to

situational-contingency theory, the group or person being led

decides the right leadership style. The situation theory identified four
maturity levels ranging from M1 to M4. This was later modified to
the development levels ranging from D1 and D4
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
DECISION-MAKING THEORY
 The decision-making theory or the Vroom Yetton Contingency Model believes
that decisions are crucial elements of leadership. As per the model, decisions
influence the relationship between leader and their team. The leader must
maintain and build the relationship and directly affects their success. There are
five leadership styles-
 Autocratic (A1) – The leader believes the information they have is sufficient to
make decisions.
 Autocratic (A2) – The leader consults their team as a unit, notes their
suggestion but makes the final decision alone.
 Consultative (C1) – The leader consult each team member individually for input
and opinions. They will consider the suggestion before making their decisions.
 Consultative (C2) – The leader will consult on other employees at various
levels. They may have in-depth discussions. They will take gather suggestions
before making decisions.
 Collaborative (G2) – this contingency approach to leadership. They hold
meetings, take inputs, and make decisions by vote.
KEY TRAITS OF CONTINGENCY
LEADERSHIP
The different contingency models of leadership have their
difference but share a common thread. Contingency theory
emphasis that effective leadership depends on the situation, task,
and people involved. Contingency Leaders may react to situations
differently. The efficiency of contingency leadership depends on
factors like project scope, team size, and resource availability. Key
traits of contingency leadership are-
1. Contingency model adopts a flexible approach
Contingency model adopts a flexible approach. The fundamental
belief of the contingency model is that there is no fixed approach
to solving a problem. Organizational requirements change all the
time. Situational leaders are flexible and modify their leadership
style suitable to the maturity level of their team and present
situation. They change their approach to get the work done.
2. Contingency theories of leadership style changes with the situation
Contingency theories of leadership style will depend on two factors =
present situation and the maturity of the team members. Contingency
leaders use the Hersey-Blanchard model to assess the maturity levels and
development levels of their team. If the team or an employee is
inexperienced, the leader will adopt a more hands-on approach.

3. The contingency approach to leadership by participating

 One of the contingency approaches to leadership, is to encourage their

team to become more independent in performing tasks and take

routine decisions. The leadership approach uses consulting and
democratic leadership styles, with the high-level problem solving still
under the leader’s purview
4.Contingency leadership theory is directing
 The contingency approach to leadership is an extension of the

directive approach when inexperienced team members. These

members need a lot of supervision, knowledge transfer, and
motivation to complete tasks. For entry-level teams, the leader
gives them direct instructions to achieve their goal.
5. The contingency approach to management knows delegation
 When teams are capable and mature, the leader can take a

contingency approach to management and reduce their

supervision and involvement in day-to-day activities gradually.
When delegating, the leader is involved in discussing tasks and
the targets, but the team members are free to decide how the
target will be achieved.
Contingency theories conclude that task-oriented leaders are
successful and popular in situations and circumstances that are
either highly favourable or highly unfavourable to them. Whereas
relation-oriented leaders tend to be successful in situations that are
medium in favourableness. Thus, it is complicated to suggest an
appropriate style of leadership. A leader cannot blindly follow one
style or another. A leader can be effective only when he understands
the dynamism of the situation and adaptive in nature. Thus, to gain
an in-depth insight of these theories we will further discuss case
studies and examples from India and abroad.
CASE STUDY BASED ON
FIEDLER MODEL
 One aspect of Fiedler’s model talks about leaders being task oriented.
Such a case can be seen during the pandemic situation. Germany,
Taiwan and South Korea are the countries which have effectively
managed COVID-19 situation and considered that the leaders have
taken this model into account. Angela Merkel’s chancellor of Germany
directs the country to take the virus seriously and testing was done on
large scale. So far Taiwan has been considered effective in handling the
crisis of COVID-19. Under Tsai Ing-wen’s leadership various measures
were taken to deal with coronavirus. Hence without lockdown country
was successful in preventing COVID-19. Taiwan had produced more
than 20 million face masks and donated 10 million face masks to
European countries. Prime minister of Iceland Katrin Jakobsdottir has
made testing free for all residents and Iceland has tracing system which
proves to be effective. Iceland and South Korea are proved to be
successful in managing the situation because of their testing system.
 EXAMPLES-
 Another aspect of this model is that the leaders are relationship oriented in the
moderate favourable situations. An example of this would be of a manager facing a
situation with an employee who regularly shows up late to work. A manager could
have a written protocol for this situation in which there is only one option: give the
employee notice, which would have been task oriented. Under the relationship-
oriented viewpoint, however, the manager may decide to better understand the
situation by talking to the employee about why s/he is late to work and then
deciding on the most effective and appropriate course of action. The value in this
lies in the information the manager acquires about the employee: maybe there are
extenuating circumstances that can be relatively easy to work around. In this case,
the contingency approach of this model allows the employee to keep her/his job
and saves the manager from going through the time and trouble to dismiss one
employee and hire another.
 Another example would be of McDonald’s, restaurant managers are mostly task
oriented who handle structured task like overseeing sales and controlling
profitability. Area (frontline) managers however are more relationship oriented
and specialize in unstructured task since the restaurant promotes good working
relationship and friendship among each other. These leaders are more qualified as
they need to be patient in teaching and building a good relationship with their
employees. How well a manager does and how well he is being used to the fullest
depends on the situation he is placed in.
CASE STUDY BASED ON
SITUATIONAL
LEADERSHIP
 Situational leadership means adapting your management style
to each unique situation or task to meet the needs of the team
or team members. These leaders understand the importance
of duties and responsibilities and review their actions at
operational level. Delhi government is the real example of
leadership theory. As the cases increased in Delhi in March
2021, the widespread virus took the edge during the
pandemic. Evaluating this situation, the government
announced lockdown to bring back the situation to a better
condition. Recently in 2022, the virus breaks out once again
but in a milder form, seeing this situation Delhi chief Minister
gave assurance to the public that there is nothing to worry
about it. Further he stated that government is four steps
ahead of the coronavirus. At present Delhi is having sufficient
beds and isolated centres to treat corona patients and. Delhi
government emphasizes on controlling the number of deaths
causalities due to COVID-19 and announces only curfew but
nothing as extreme as lockdown.
EXAMPLE-PATH GOAL
THEORY
 The Path-goal theory entails how leaders motivate followers
to attain goals. It is upon the leader to ensure that
subordinates understand the goal and are motivated to
follow a certain path. The former CEO for Apple
Incorporation is perceived to be strict follower of the path-
goal theory. He could identify a goal and walk through the
path with the followers to realize the desired success. Steve
Jobs is known to have led the Apple engineering team in
designing new products. He came up with ideas for new
designs and worked with the team of engineers to ensure
the new product is developed. Although he gave directives,
he was part of the team that implemented them since he
was committed to the process of realizing success for the
organization that he led. Moreover, the path-goal theory
illustrates that the leadership process shall have obstacles.
Only outstanding leaders will help their organizations to
navigate through the obstacles that may arise. Steve Jobs is
an outstanding example of such leaders
 At the time that Apple Incorporation underwent major challenges, Steve
Jobs was leading the park in dealing with the issues. He pushed for a
solution with the rest of the team. He provided directions amidst the
challenges that came up. He depicted the leadership character which would
come with the ability to deal with the challenges that may arise. As such,
path-goal theory recognizes the ability to deal with challenges as an
outstanding leadership element. The theory is suitable for eliminating
obstacles in an organization. Obstacles cause uncertainties as well as
frustrations that may prevent subordinates from realizing their potential
and realizing specific goals.
 Lastly, as per the path-goal theory, there is an achievement-oriented leader.
Such a leader focuses on results by setting high standards for their
followers. They intend to improve their followers over time by making them
develop new and better skills. Despite being recognized as an innovator,
Steve Jobs realized that he had to make the best out of the employees. He
gave each of them an opportunity to showcase their innovativeness. It was
an outstanding approach because after his death, Apple became stronger
with the help of the employees that he had supported.
CRITIQUES OF CONTINGENCY
THEORIES
 In-spite of the various contributions, contingency approach has not been
acknowledged as a unified theory of management because it suffers from some
limitations.
1.Organizational change
 Contingency theory is challenged as static and fails to deal with organizational

change and adaptation (Galunic & Eisenhardt, 1994). The theory, like sociological
functionalism more generally, is often considered as being an equilibrium theory, in
that organizations are depicted as attaining fit and then being in equilibrium and so
remaining static.
2.Inadequate literature
 Contingency approach suffers from inadequately of literature. Therefore, it has not

adequately spelled out various types of actions which can be taken under different
situations. It is not sufficient to say that ‘a managerial action depends on the
situation.’
 The approach should provide ‘if this is the situation, this action can be taken.’ Unless,

this is done, the approach cannot offer much assistance to the practice of
management. No doubt, researches have been conducted in this direction but, by
and large, they have not satisfied the needs of managers.
3. Complex
 The suggestion of the approach is very simple, that is, managers should do

according to the needs of the situation. However, when put into practice, this
becomes very complex. Determination of situation in which managerial action is to
be taken involves analysis of a large number of variables with multifarious
dimensions. Therefore, there is a possibility that managers, who are always short of
time, may ignore the thorough analysis of all these variables and may resort to
short-cut and easier way.

4. Difficult Empirical Testing:

 Contingency approach being complex, presents problems in testing the precepts of

the theory. For empirical testing of the theory, it is necessary that some
methodology is available. No doubt, methodology is available but because of the
involvement of too many factors, testing becomes difficult.

5. Reactive not Proactive:

 Contingency approach is basically reactive in nature. If nearly suggests what

managers can do in a given situation. For a given organisation, super system

constitutes environment and management can be applied to supra-system also.
Therefore, managers are responsible to manage the environment in such a way that
they avoid the undesirable aspects of environment.
CONCLUSION
with likely shortcomings, the theory enjoys some level of acceptability among
researchers in the study of leadership, accounting controls, and personnel
management. One of the strengths of the theory is that it has been empirically
tested and found to be a valid and reliable approach to explaining how to
achieve effective leadership and controls. It has also broadened the scope of
understanding leadership style, emphasizing the importance of a situational
approach to organizing. Therefore no one particular leadership style is
successful in all different situations This allows for assessment of leaders
based on circumstances and situational contingencies It has the predictive
ability to organising that most likely to be effective in particular context,
mechanistic or organic. For example, stock valuation method. Contingency
theory contends that leaders should not expect to be effective in every
situation. Thus companies should strive to place leaders in optimal situations
according to their leadership style, skills, among others. Contingency theory
supplies data on leadership styles (profile) that could be useful to
organizations in developing leadership profiles for human resource planning.