2.5 Leadership 35
2.5.2 Contingency Theory 37
Contingency theorists hold that personal traits alone are inadequate to influence leadership
development. Instead leadership development initiatives should take into account all environmental factors having an influential role in organisational leadership (Fiedler, 1978). Fiedler’s Contingency
theory asserts that whether the leader is effective or not is dependent on the leader’s personal traits and the context within which they lead. This is supported by Daft (2008:58) who stated that
“Contingency means that one thing depends on other things, and for a leader to be effective there must be an appropriate fit between the leader’s behaviour and style and the conditions in the situation”.
Contingency theorists hold that organisations exist in environments characterised by a number of factors that impact on organisational activities and that leading such organisations is contingent upon contexts within which leadership takes place (Daft, 2011). Contingency leadership theories claim that leaders should employ leadership styles that are adaptive or sensitive to context demands.
Contingency theorists argue that autocratic and participative leadership styles are equally important and that what separates the two is the context within which they are applied. Leaders may apply autocratic leadership style when circumstances so require like in the case of an emergency while shared leadership styles may be more suitable in non-emergency situations.
There are five common contingent leadership theories in the leadership literature i.e. Fiedler’s contingency model, Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership theories, Path- Goal theory, the Vroom-Jago contingency model and the leader substitute model of leadership (Daft, 2011).
38 2.5.2.1 Fiedler’s Contingency theory
Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership was coined after its founder, Fred E. Fiedler, who found that the success of a leader is contingent upon a leader’s leadership style and the contextual conditions within which a leader operates (Daft, 2011). Fiedler believed that a leader’s personal characteristics can influence his or her success (Jones and George, 2009). According to Fiedler there are two types of leaders, one that is relationship-oriented and the one that is task- oriented.
Relationship-oriented leaders spend most of their time building healthy relationship between them and their subordinates (Jones and George, 2009; Daft, 2011). Task-oriented leaders, on the other hand, spend most of their time ensuring that their subordinates’ performance is at highest levels and that that tasks are completed in time (Jones and George, 2009; Daft, 2011). Fiedler’s contingency theory holds that leadership is contingent upon situations that can either be favourable or unfavourable to leaders. The model identifies three key factors that can work in favour or against the leader’s leadership style i.e. leader-member relationship, task structure and position power.
a) Leader-member relationship
Leader-member relationship refers to the extent to which leaders create healthy relationships between themselves and their employees. Leader-member relations that are based on trust, confidence and respect are considered to be providing good situations for leaders, while leader- member relationships that are based on distrust, little or no respect and little confidence are considered to be providing poor situations for leaders (Daft, 2011).
b) Task structure
Task structure refers to how leaders clarify roles performed by their subordinates in the organisation to help subordinates understand these roles and to perform as expected for the attainment of organisational goals (Daft, 2011). Daft stated that routinely defined roles have a high degree of structure and are viewed as favourable for leaders to be in charge of the execution of the role, while innovative and less defined roles have low structure and are less favourable.
39 c) Position power
Position power refers to the formal authority leaders have over their employees. Formal authority is considered high when leaders have authority to plan and direct job roles for their employees, undertake some evaluations, and reward good performance or to take remedial steps against poor performers. Formal authority is low when leaders have little power over their employees and they cannot monitor their performance, reward or punish them (Daft, 2011). Daft stated that a high position of power provides a favourable situation for a leader while a low position of power provides an unfavourable situation for a leader.
2.5.2.2 Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Theory
The Hersey and Blanchard’s situational theory holds that the success of leaders is dependent on how well leaders understand their subordinates and their capabilities. This theory emphasises the point that the characteristics of followers vary and that leadership styles should follow suit. In strengthening their argument, Hersey and Blanchard made a distinction between subordinates who are “low in task readiness” and those that are “high in task readiness” (Daft, 2011:65). Subordinates who are not proficient in their tasks require a certain leadership style and those that are proficient in their tasks require a different leadership style (Daft, 2011).
Hersey and Blanchard’s theory identifies four leadership styles that leaders can adopt depending on the situation (relationship or task orientation) they find themselves in- namely, telling style, selling style, participating style and delegating style (Daft, 2011). The telling style associates itself with a directive style of leadership where task orientation is higher than relationship orientation. The selling style maintains the balance between task and relationship orientation. Subordinates are treated as partners who are consulted and allowed an opportunity to give inputs in as far as their work tasks are concerned. The participating style represents a situation where relationship building is higher than task orientation. This style is characterised by high levels of sharing of ideas, participation and horizontal decision making. The delegating style represents a situation where tasks are delegated to subordinates. The leader does not pay too much attention on either tasks or relationships but instead delegates tasks to subordinates and helps them as and when required.
40 2.5.2.3 Path-Goal Theory
The work of Jones and George (2009:510) define path-goal theory as “a contingency model of leadership proposing that leaders can motivate subordinates by identifying their desired outcomes, rewarding them for high performance and the attainment of work goals with these desired outcomes, and clarifying for them the paths leading to the attainment of work goals”. Formulated by House (1971), path-goal theory holds that leaders can influence their subordinates’ behaviour towards the attainment of group or organisational goals by clearly articulating goals the subordinates need to attain, communicating paths leading to the attainment of these goals to subordinates and by removing challenges likely to hinder effective performance, and rewarding subordinates for the attainment of these goals. Modern researchers have supported the assumptions of the path-goal theory arguing that leadership entails among other things clarifying goals, communicating ways in which these goals are to be attained and attaching rewards to best performance (Daft, 2011).
2.5.2.4 The Vroom Jago Contingency Model
According to the Vroom and Jago Contingency model, a leader’s choice to employ either an inclusive or autocratic approach is dependent on a number of situational factors (Daft, 2011). In some cases, leaders might find it appropriate to include subordinates in solving a problem while in other instances, the leaders might find it appropriate to tackle the problem alone. Leaders who apply this model are guided by its three major components i.e. leader participation styles, a list of diagnostic questions and a number of decision rules (Daft, 2011). These major components help leaders decide on whether to be democratic and include subordinates or to shut participation doors completely and be autocratic.
2.5.2.5 The Leader Substitute Model of leadership
Kerr and Jermier (1978) argue that under certain conditions, subordinates can excel in performing their tasks with limited or no leadership involvement or influence. This model is a
contingency model because it assumes that under certain conditions or in a certain context subordinates can self-manage themselves. In this case the situation or characteristics of the employees work as a substitute for what would have been the leaders influence (Jones and George, 2009). Jones and George (2009) argue that the subordinate’s personal attributes such as skills,
41 experience, level of motivation, knowledge and abilities are good substitutes for leadership. The dynamics of the situation or context like the degree to which the job is fascinating and exciting to the subordinate can be substitutes. Well adopted leader substitute models give rise to self-managed employees and ultimately self-managed teams, which helps afford leaders enough time to develop
new organisational improvement approaches.