Contingency theory is a concept of leadership that argues that there is no best way to do things. It argues that the best way to handle a particular situation would be different from the best way to handle another situation. This means, therefore, that there are no hard and fast rules in leading and organizing and that leadership or organizational behavior that is effective and efficient in some situations would or may not work in others. The theory posits that leadership styles are dependent on numerous internal and external factors and constrains and should, therefore, be analyzed depending on the specific cases in question . Contingency theory relates to leaders who are key decision makers in an organization. The theory seeks to inform these decision makers that all situations are never similar and, thus need different prescriptions. It is vital that a design implemented in a particular organization must meet the needs of the organizations. That is, the sub-system must be compatible to the environment. This is a significant point that should be taken into consideration by the decision making organs of an organization. It also relates to the human resource and the work nature of the group.
The contingency theory designed by Fred Fiedler is in focus of leadership. It is a model designed to handle a situation depending on the favorableness of the situation and the leadership style adopted. Therefore, the theory seeks to assert that a leader’s effectiveness is dependent on how well the leader applies his style in a given context. To determine which the leadership style is proper and which was one is not, Fiedler used empirical grounded generalizations. This involves assessing a context that is guided by situational variables and available leadership styles. These leadership styles are usually defined by Task-motivated (Low LPCs) and Relationship-motivated (high LPCS) styles. In task-motivated styles, the leaders have a sole objective of attaining a primary goal. This means that all their resources and labor should be aligned towards the realization of the goal. On the other hand, relationship-motivated styles are mainly concerned with ameliorating the interpersonal skills of the work force. The leader seeks to develop their unity, cohesion and cooperation in line with the working of the organization.
There are three significant factors or situational variables in contingency theory. These include leadership member structure, position power structure and task structure. The leadership member structure denotes the team’s ambience and the degree of loyalty, confidence and affinity of followers to their team leader. With regard to the team ambience or group atmosphere, there are two main categories available. These are a poor atmosphere and a good atmosphere. In a poor atmosphere, there is a lot of friction between the leader and the followers. The leader is also usually unfriendly and may appear harsh while instructing or directing his followers. Such an environment leads to little or no trust at all by the followers of their team leader and vice versa. This is not a desirable leadership environment. On the other hand, in a good environment, there exists a positive relationship between the leader and his followers, which leads to high degree of trust between them.
A task structure denotes a situational variable where the requirements of an assignment are clearly spelled out. In a task structure, there are also two sub variants; high structure and low structure. In a low structure, the rules of engagement are not clearly spelled out, and there are many methods that a follower can employ to execute his duties. Moreover, it is a continuous process, and it is difficult to identify when a task has been accomplished. There is also a limited number of correct formats of doing things. In a nut shell, there are no hard and fast rules in the low structure. On the other hand, a high structure has specific rules and procedures and a tasks have a starting point and an end. A high structure has few alternative ways of doing things and has few correct solutions to its problems.
Position power structure provides for powers or the authority of a leader to sanction or reward a follower. There is weak power and strong power. In a strong power, the leader has the power and authority to hire, to promote, to demote and to fire a follower. On the other hand, in weak power the leader has no such powers. In all the situational factors, the most desirable for an organization involves a combination of a strong power leader, a good environment between the followers and their leader and a high structure leadership style because of its effectiveness and predictability. The opposites of these three factors form the most unfavorable situations in an organization. The moderately favorable situations are in between these two extreme ends and this is where most organizations are fall.
The contingency theory has several strengths. To begin with, the theory has a lot of empirical support. It has been tested multiple times by various researchers who arrive at the same conclusions. Secondly, the research entertains a broadened understanding of organizations. Thirdly, because of the predictive nature of the theory, it is possible to predict which type of leadership fits a specific situation. Fourthly, it can be defined as a not an all-or nothing approach. It realizes that in dealing with human beings there is room for errors and one cannot be expected to be optimal at all times. The theory also provides information on how to nurture leadership.
However, the theory also has several criticisms. The theory fundamentally fails to explain the reason why some leaders can be more effective than others. It has also with time developed its own standard of leadership based on the LPC scale, which does not relate with other standards set by other theories. Moreover, the theory is not only unable to provide solutions for a mismatch, but it is also cumbersome in day to day application and the running of an organization. It is only good on paper and not in practice.
This theory is applicable in assisting senior managers make the requisite reshuffles to ensure that there is an ideal match between the task and its leader. It is also vital in providing answers to leadership questions about organizations. The ideal companies for the use of this form of leadership include consumers and competitors, technology, unions and suppliers and distributors. This is one of the best forms of leadership theories. Despite its criticism, the theory provides fundamental answers to a critical question that affects leadership of many companies. It also stipulates how to get implemented and has been proven by empirical research from multiple researches.
References
Fairholm, M. R., & Fairholm, G. W. (2009). Understanding Leadership Perspectives. New York: Springer.
Daft, R. L. (2008). The Leadership Experience. New York: Cengage Learning.
Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2009). Leadership: Theory, Application, & Skill Development. New York: Cengage Learning.
Miner, J. B. (2007). Organizational Behavior 4: From Theory to Practice. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
