Contingency theory
Contingency theory is a leadership framework that suggests there is no singular best way to lead an organization; instead, the effectiveness of leadership is contingent upon the specific context and situation faced by the leader. Developed by psychologist Fred Fiedler in the late 1960s, this theory emphasizes that a leader's style must match the requirements of the situation for optimal organizational effectiveness. It contrasts with traditional scientific management theories by highlighting the influence of both the leader's personality and the situational context on leadership success.
Fiedler identified two primary leadership styles: task-motivated and relationship-motivated, which are assessed using the least preferred coworker (LPC) index. This index evaluates how a leader’s style aligns with various situational variables, such as structure, power dynamics, and interpersonal relationships. A low LPC indicates a task-oriented style, while a high LPC signifies a focus on relationships. Over the decades, contingency theory has been validated through research across diverse organizational settings, reinforcing its relevance in understanding leadership dynamics. Overall, the theory illustrates that effective leadership is a complex interplay of individual attributes and contextual factors.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Contingency theory
Contingency theory was first researched and described by psychologist Fred Fiedler in the late 1960s, and is also known as a leader-match theory. His research influenced organizational researchers attempting to understand the influence of leaders on organizational behavior and outcomes. Contingency theory postulates there is no one best way to lead an organization and that leadership style is acutely matched to various situations in management. Contingency theory bears similarities to situational theory, both of which are in contrast to the scientific management theories of industrial management expert Frederick Winslow Taylor and social theorist Max Weber.
Overview
Leadership affects organizational behavior, effectiveness, and success in numerous ways. Contingency theory is consonant with a class of behavioral theories attributing the cause and effect of leadership style on the organization as a whole. Fiedler first researched contingency theory and described its primary characteristic as “leader-matched” in that a leader’s effectiveness is matched with the context of a situation and how well the leader’s style is congruent with the situation or organizational context. In contingency theory, leadership style affects the quality or organizational behavior and effectiveness, dependent upon the nature of the situation or task. Contingency theory is grounded in research and has survived decades of study that has validated it in various forms of organizations.
Contingency theory emphasizes the importance of both the leader’s personality and the situational context in which the leader operates. In Fiedler’s seminal study on leaders in a variety of contexts, he outlined two primary leadership styles: task motivated and relationship motivated. He then developed a model to measure the variations in leader matches, known as the least preferred coworker (LPC) index. The LPC index rates the leader on a scale of one to eight, identifying characteristics that encourage or discourage leader effectiveness. Subsequent researchers focused on power, relationships, and task structures as methods of ascertaining both positive and negative factors affecting leadership success. Attributes demonstrated by leadership style contribute to whether person’s style of leadership is effective or not given the situational context. In Fiedler’s contingency theory, leaders are rated based on their approach to situational variables, thus resulting in a successful leader match according to the appropriateness of the situation. If the leader’s style is not consistent with the situation, generalizations can be made about his or her effectiveness.
Task-motivated and relationship-motivated contexts are contingent upon situational variables that include structure, power, and relationships. When leaders are task related, their leadership style is described as having a low LPC. In contrast, when leadership is viewed as relationship motivated, their leadership style is viewed as having a high LPC.
Bibliography
Bacher, Christian. Contingency Theory. GRIN Verlag, 2007.
Donaldson, L. The Contingency Theory of Organizations. Sage, 2001.
Fiedler, Fred E. “Validation and Extension of the Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness: A Review of Empirical Findings.” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 76, no. 2, 1971, p. 128.
"Fiedler’s Contingency Theory: Why Leadership Isn’t Uniform." Asana, 24 May 2024, asana.com/resources/fiedlers-contingency-theory. Accessed 29 July 2024.
Ghofar, Abdul, and Sardar M. N. Islam. Corporate Governance and Contingency Theory: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach and Accounting Risk Implications. Springer, 2015. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Accessed 29 July 2024.
Hughes, R. L., R. C. Ginnet, and G. J. Curphy. Contingency Theories of Leadership. McGraw, 2012.
Landis, Eric A., Deborah Hill, and Maurice R. Harvey. “A Synthesis of Leadership Theories and Styles.” Journal of Management Policy & Practice, vol. 15, no. 2, 2014, pp. 97–100. Business Source Complete. Accessed 29 July 2024.
Lorsch, Jay. “A Contingency Theory of Leadership.” Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice, edited by Nitin Nohria and Rakesh Khurana, Harvard Business Review P, 2010, pp. 411–29.
Northouse, P. Leadership: Theory and Practice. 6th ed., Sage, 2012.
Sousa, R., and C. Voss. “Contingency Research in Operations Management Practice.” Journal of Operations Management, vol. 26, no. 6, 2008, pp. 697–713.
Van de Ven, Andrew H., Martin Ganco, and C. R. Hinings. “Returning to the Frontier of Contingency Theory of Organizational and Institutional Design.” Academy of Management Annals, vol. 7, no. 1, 2013, pp. 393–440.
Waldman, David A., and Rachel M. Balven. “Responsible Leadership: Theoretical Issues and Research Directions.” Academy of Management Perspectives, vol. 3015, no. 1, 2015, pp. 19–29. Business Source Complete. Accessed 29 July 2024.