Contingency theory

Considered, when developed, a complex and controversial model, Fiedler’s Contingency Theory (1958) was named ‘contingency theory’ because leader effectiveness depends on not only the leader, but also on the followers and the situation. Contingency theory looks at: 

(a) the leader’s personal leadership style (encompassing personal traits, behaviour and their role); as well as 

(b) the situation (including the task, structure, systems and environment); and 

(c) the follower's readiness (the team needs, maturity, training and cohesion). 

Together, these factors contribute to the desired outcomes, whether a leader is task-oriented or relationship-oriented and matches leader style to situation. These three sets of characteristics - leader; situation; followers - collectively form the base for Fiedler’s Contingency Theory (1958). 

Fiedler's (1958) model forms a punnet chart, with four possible behaviour approaches: high task, low relationship; high task, high relationship; high relationship, low task; and low task, low relationship. A leader can adapt their style to be high or low on both task and relationship behaviour (Fielder, 1958). 

Fiedler’s (1958) model was designed to diagnose both leadership style and the organisational situation: 

1. Firstly we need to identify our personal style style – i.e. whether we as the leader are relationship-oriented or task-oriented (and using a later theory, the Least Preferred Co-worker inventory, to determine our style). 
2. Secondly, we plot leadership situation on favourability continuum: Leader-follower relations where we measure follower’s leadership trust and respect in the leader; the clarity of the task structure where the group has clear goals and a clear means of achieving them; and the position power, which evaluates the leader's ability to reward or punish staff for their actions. 
3. Lastly, we determine what would be the best match for leadership style in this situation - which leader style was most favourable for success in the particular set of circumstances - and select an appropriate leader accordingly (Daft, 2008; Fiedler, 1958).

This last step allows us to explore a range of scenarios. Using the diagram accompanying this post, task-oriented leaders have the strongest positive effect in situations 1, 2, 3, and 8. Relationship-motivated leaders have the strongest positive effect in situations 4 through 7. We can see that relationship-oriented and task-oriented leaders perform well in some situations but not in others. Thus, leader effectiveness depends on the situation; it is contingent. And, generally, only leaders have the power to do something about the situation.

Fiedler’s Contingency Theory (1958) has lead to further theories: those of the Least Preferred Co-worker; Leader Style Fit; Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Theory; House’s Path Goal Theory; The Vroom-Jago Contingency Model and Substitutes for Leadership (Daft, 2008; Jackson & Parry, 2018). The contingency and behavioural theorists of the twentieth century have overall considered two key elements, termed meta-theories, where elements of task behaviour and relationship orientation are two key lenses to consider leadership through (Daft, 2008).

Read more here (Young, 2020), if you are interested :-)

Sam

References:

Daft, R. L., (2008). The Leadership Experience (4th ed.). Thomson-South Western.

Fiedler, F. (1958). Leader attitudes and group effectiveness (2nd printing, 1959). The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois.

Jackson, B., & Parry K. (2018). A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying leadership (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.

Young, S. (2020, February 3). Leader frames of reference. Acts of Leadership. https://www.samyoung.co.nz/2020/02/leader-frames-of-reference.html