The Contingency Theory of Leadership was developed by the psychologist Fred Fiedler in the 1950s initially as a series of measurements and then formalized as a theory in the late 1960s (Fiedler, 1967). The essential tenet of the Contingency Theory of Leadership is that there is no one single best model of leadership, but the situation will dictate the method and leadership style (Mills & McKimm, 2016). The focus tends to be on the leader being able to correctly read the situation and adapt the style of leadership accordingly. The theory states that the effectiveness of a leader is dependent on: (1) leadership style, that is, whether the leader is oriented to relationships or oriented to the task, and (2) the level to which the leader has control over the situation or outcome. The degree of control the leader has over the situation (situational control) depends on several factors: the relationship between the leader and the members of the group, the structure of the task, and the position power. Together these factors determine the effectiveness of the leader in a given situation (Miner, 2005).
The first major factor in situational control is the relationship between the leader and the group members and describes the amount of confidence and trust that the members have in their leader. For example, the leader with more member trust and confidence has more situational control than a leader who is less well-regarded. Second, the structure of the task is the extent to which the task is clear and structured as opposed to unstructured and vague. Tasks that are clearer and more structured increase the situational control of the leader (Miner, 2005). Third, the leader’s position power refers to the amount of power that the leader has to direct the activities of the group and to issue punishment or reward. The greater the level of power a leader has, the more situational control the leader has (Miner, 2005). Other factors influencing the leadership control attributes were added later, such as heterogeneity in language and culture, situational stress, and the leader’s experience and training (Miner, 2005). Today, the Contingency Theory of Leadership is also known as context theories or situational leadership (Mills & McKimm, 2016).
The following is an example of the Contingency Theory of Leadership as applied to a long term nursing care facility. Staff absenteeism has an effect on cost containment, staffing productivity and patient outcome. The situation is that the facility is experiencing considerable staff absenteeism, which has become a problem when assigning shifts and patient loads. In this case the leadership style can be midway between a task- and a relational-oriented style. The leader needs to take into consideration that there can be a variety of legitimate reasons for absentees beyond illness and lack of flexibility in this area can breed staff resentment. The first task is to ensure that the situation is clear and structured. To accomplish this, the leader should make sure that all staff are aware of the procedures are when justifying an absence. A meeting can be called and regulations posted in an area that is available to all staff. A further element of structure can be a form that must be filled out after an absence that outlines the supporting documents, if any, that must be submitted along with the form. The amount of power the leader needs to demonstrate in order for the leadership to be effective. An example of a demonstration of power would be the ability of the leader to make sure that the absent staff member without a valid excuse must take the day of absence as a vacation day rather than an authorized sick day. The leader will need to have a good relationship with his or her staff in order for the absentee regulations to be accepted.
An example of leadership with regard to patient outcome is the staff encouraging patient participation in organized activities in the facility, for example, recreational or rehabilitation therapy. In this case the relationship is between the patient and the staff member and leadership needs to be towards the relational-orientation because the situation calls for gentle encouragement rather than a strict enforcement of participation. A greater level of trust needs to be established. The situation can be clarified and structured by ensuring that the patient is made aware of all the activities that are available to long term residents of the facility and the benefits of participating. A demonstration of power needs to be in the area of rewards rather than punishment and could include accompanying them to the recreation area for social support and making sure that measures are taken to ensure a positive experience for all.
Recent research has suggested that leadership that is focussed on relationships rather than tasks are more likely to be successful (Cummings, et al., 2009). If the situation is defined as a nurse being required to manage a diverse or international group and guide the group towards common goals, then it would be more efficient to adapt a relational-oriented approach. In a fast-paced and changing nursing environment, a relationship-oriented nurse leader will be more effective in fostering individual member adjustment than would be a task-oriented nurse leader (Miner, 2009). Another reason to suggest that a relational-oriented leadership would be more appropriate is because a greater degree of staff education might be necessary. As for situational control, the factors of a high degree of trust, clarity of goals and good position power is perhaps even more important in a diverse group.
In summary, the Contingency Theory of Leadership assumed that the style of leadership should adjust to the situation. Today, research favors the more relational approaches (Cummings, et al., 2009) and leadership styles have become more refined, for example transactional and transformation leadership.
References
Cummings, G. G., MacGregor, T., Davey, M., Lee, H., Wong, C., A., Lo, E.,..Stafford, E. (2009). Leadership styles and outcome patterns for the nursing workforce and work environment: A systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.08.006
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McCleskey, J. A. (2014). Situational, Transformational, and Transactional Leadership and Leadership Development. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 5(4), 117-130..
Mills, J. K. A. & Mckimm, J. (2016). Contingency theories of leadership: how might we use them in clinical practice? British Journal of Hospital Medicine, 77(5), 268. doi/full/10.12968/hmed.2016.77.5.268
Miner, J. B. (2005). Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe
