Contingency Model of Leadership

Definition

The contingency model of leadership is a model of leadership effectiveness that predicts group performance will be based on the interplay between leadership style and various situational factors. Because different leadership styles work more effectively in certain situations than in others, the model predicts optimal group performance will result when a leadership style accords with the situational contexts it is best suited to handle.

Four Elements of the Model

Depending on the situation and their personalities, leaders use different tactics to plan, coordinate, and oversee group activities. Certain personalities will better fit certain contexts than others, and conversely, certain contexts will better accommodate certain personalities. One could imagine the mismatch of a drill sergeant berating a symphony orchestra or an orchestra conductor silently coordinating military operations with a baton. This basic premise of the interplay between [Page 179]person and situation underlies the logic of the contingency model of leadership.

There are four elements of the model. The first concerns the personality of the leader. Broadly, a leader may be classified as either task-oriented or as relationship-oriented. Task-oriented leaders care primarily about the bottom line (i.e., whether the job gets done), whereas relationship-oriented leaders care primarily about establishing pleasant interpersonal relationships with coworkers. One commonly used approach for assessing leadership orientation asks the leader to recall and identify the person with whom he or she has had the most trouble working. This person may or may not be the most disliked person, but he or she must be the person with whom it is (or has been) particularly difficult to accomplish various work-related tasks. Next, the leader rates this person on various dimensions, such as pleasant–unpleasant, cooperative– uncooperative, and efficient–inefficient. Some leaders tend to rate this coworker negatively across all possible dimensions, whereas others tend to find in this coworker at least some positive qualities. These tendencies signify different leadership orientations: Across the board, negative evaluations indicate a more task-oriented leadership style, whereas a blend of positive and negative ratings indicates a more relationship-oriented leadership style. This measure, called the least preferred coworker (LPC) scale, has inspired a wealth of research but to this day remains controversial.

The other three elements of the model concern a leader's situational control. Broadly, situational control refers to the leader's sense of influence and control over the situation. Each element of the model corresponds to a different aspect of situational control and will be dealt with in order of importance. The first element, leader–member relations, refers to how cohesive the group is and how much the group supports the leader. Without good leader–member relations, all group energy becomes bound up in controlling the group rather than on work productivity. Furthermore, a respected leader better influences the group than a leader with poor relationships with his or her coworkers. The second element, task structure, refers to the clarity of task goals. Leaders usually prefer clearly defined tasks with clearly defined requirements (i.e., structured tasks) because they can then more effectively guide their coworkers. The third element, position power, refers to the official authority accorded to the leader by the group or by the leader's supervisor. A leader with high power has the capacity to reward and punish workers, a desired commodity for most leaders. Overall, good leader–member relations, a highly structured task, and high position power represent the most positive situation for a leader; conversely, poor leader–member relations, a highly unstructured task, and low position power represent the least favorable situation.

...