Contingency Model Leadership Psychology

What is a leader? Industrial/Organizational psychologists do not seem to be able to agree on a definition. One way to understand leadership, however, is through the differences between a leader and an authority. Authorities are those who hold formal positions that give them the power to direct the behavior of their subordinates. Managers, supervisors, and bosses are authorities. They may or may not also be leaders, depending on whether they rely solely on their official positions when applying influence on others. A true leader does not use force and coercion to direct his or her followers toward a common goal.

There are many leadership theories. Arthur G. Jago (1982) proposed a framework that organizes leadership theories based on each theory's focus and approach.

"Focus" refers to whether leadership is viewed as a set of traits or as a set of actions.

1.        Focus on Traits: Theories with such a focus see leaders as having certain innate or inherent personality traits that distinguish them from non-leaders. These personality traits are supposed to be relatively stable and enduring.

2.        Focus on Behavior: Theories with this type of focus see leadership as observable actions of the leader instead of personality traits.

"Approach" is concerned with whether a particular theory or model of leadership takes a universal or a contingent perspective.

1.        Universal Approach: This approach believes that there is a universal formula of the traits or behavior for an effective leader. In other words, the universal approach assumes that there is "one best way" to lead in all situations.

2.        Contingent Approach: Contrary to the universal approach, the contingent approach does not believe the "one best way" formula. It believes that effective leadership depends on the specific situation.

Basic Assumptions

Fred Fiedler believes that leadership effectiveness depends on both the leader's personality and the situation. Certain leaders are effective in one situation but not in others.

Devices Fiedler uses to determine leader personality and the situation:

Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) Scale

The LPC is used to measure a leader's motivation: "Task motivation" vs. "relationship motivation" (Notice here, these are the trait versions of the "concern of production" vs. "concern of people" categories in the Managerial Grid).

Fiedler assumes that everybody's least preferred coworker in fact is on average about equally unpleasant. But people who are relationship motivated tend to describe their least preferred coworkers in a more positive manner, e.g., more pleasant and more efficient. Therefore, they receive higher LPC scores. People who are task motivated, on the other hand, tend to rate their least preferred coworkers in a more negative manner. Therefore, they receive lower LPC scores. So, the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale is actually not about the least preferred worker. Instead, it is about the person who takes the test; it is about that person's motivation type.

Situational Favorableness

There are three factors that determine the favorableness of a situation:

(1) Leader-Member Relations, referring to the degree of mutual trust, respect and confidence between the leader and the subordinates.

(2) Task Structure, referring to the degree to which the task at hand is low in multiplicity and high in verifiability, specificity, and clarity.

(3) Leader Position Power, referring to the power inherent in the leader's position itself.

When there is a good leader-member relation, a highly structured task, and high leader position power, the situation is considered a "favorable situation".

Leader-Situation Match and Mismatch

A match exists between a task-motivated leader and an either very favorable or very unfavorable situation. A relationship-motivated leader, on the other hand, matches an intermediate favorable situation. Leaders can lead most effectively when there is a match between his or her motivation type and the situation.

When the leader and the situation do not match, some things have to be changed. Since personally traits are relatively permanent, a better solution is for the leader to move to a better matched situation. This is called "job engineering".

Evaluation

Researchers often find that Fiedler's contingency theory falls short on flexibility. They also noticed that LPC scores can fail to reflect the personality traits it is supposed to reflect. However, Fiedler's contingency theory is an important theory because it established a brand new perspective for the study of leadership. Many approaches after Fiedler's theory have adopted the contingency perspective.