Contingency theory

Last updated

A contingency theory is an organizational theory that claims that there is no best way to organize a corporation, to lead a company, or to make decisions. Instead, the optimal course of action is contingent (dependent) upon the internal and external situation. Contingent leaders are flexible in choosing and adapting to succinct strategies to suit change in situation at a particular period in time in the running of the organization.

Contents

History

The contingency approach to leadership was influenced by two earlier research programs endeavoring to pinpoint effective leadership behavior. During the 1950s, researchers at Ohio State University administered extensive questionnaires measuring a range of possible leader behaviors in various organizational contexts. Although multiple sets of leadership behaviors were originally identified based on these questionnaires, two types of behaviors proved to be especially typical of effective leaders: (1) consideration leader behaviors that include building good rapport and interpersonal relationships and showing support and concern for subordinates and (2) initiating structure leader behaviors that provided structure (e.g., role assignment, planning, scheduling) to ensure task completion and goal attainment.

About the same time, investigators from the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center conducted interviews and distributed questionnaires in organizations and collected measures of group productivity to assess effective leadership behaviors. The leadership behavior categories that emerged from the University of Chicago were similar to the consideration and initiating structure behaviors identified by the Ohio State studies. The University of Michigan investigators, however, termed these leadership behaviors relation-oriented behavior and task-oriented behavior. This line of research was later extended by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in 1964 to suggest that effective leaders score high on both these behaviors.

They suggested that previous theories such as Weber's bureaucracy and, Taylor's scientific management had failed because they neglected that management style and organizational structure were influenced by various aspects of the environment: the contingency factors. There could not be "one best way" for leadership or organization.

Historically, contingency theory has sought to formulate broad generalizations about the formal structures that are typically associated with or best fit the use of different technologies. The perspective originated with the work of Joan Woodward (1958), who argued that technologies directly determine differences in such organizational attributes as span of control, centralization of authority, and the formalization of rules and procedure.

Contingency approaches

In Fiedler’s piece from 1993, he describes how two main factors contribute to effective or successful leadership and points them out as “the personality of the leader and the degree to which the situation gives the leader power, control and influence over the situation” (p. 333-334). [1] Leadership personality can be broken up into two main motivation schools of thought for leaders. [2] Leaders can be task motivated or relationship motivated. [3] The way that Fiedler suggests individuals determine their motivation preference is through the Least Preferred Co-Worker Score or LPC. [4] The second aspect that Fielder says determines success is the specific situation and the degree to which the leader feels in control of the outcome of their actions. [5]

Gareth Morgan in his book Images of Organization summarized the main ideas underlying contingency:

Fred Fiedler's contingency model focused on a contingency model of leadership in organizations. This model contains the relationship between leadership style and the favorable-ness of the situation. Fielder developed a metric to measure a leader's style called the Least Preferred Co-worker. [6] The test consists of 16-22 items they are to rate on a scale of one to eight as they think of a co-worker they had the most difficulty working with. A high score indicates the test taker is relational in style and a low score indicates the test taker is more task orientated in style. Situational favorable-ness was described by Fiedler in terms of three empirically derived dimensions:

  1. Leader-member relationship – high if the leader is generally accepted and respected by followers
  2. Degree of task structure – high if the task is very structured
  3. Leader's position power – high if a great deal of authority and power are formally attributed to the leader's position

Situations are favorable to the leader if all three of these dimensions are high.

How to apply Fiedler’s Contingency Model:

  1. Understand your leadership style - this information can be obtained by completing a Least-Preferred Co-Worker Scale. Low LPC indicates a task-oriented leader and high LPC indicates a relationship-oriented leader
  2. Understand your situation - you have to describe your situation using the empirically derived dimensions
  3. Decide which leadership style is best - this is mostly determined by which characteristics of a certain situation are low, unstructured, or poor, so the best fit leader can come in and make that characteristic better in that circumstance [7]

William Richard Scott describes contingency theory in the following manner: "The best way to organize depends on the nature of the environment to which the organization must relate". [8] The work of other researchers including Paul R. Lawrence, Jay Lorsch, and James D. Thompson complements this statement. They are more interested in the impact of contingency factors on organizational structure. Their structural contingency theory was the dominant paradigm of organizational structural theories for most of the 1970s. A major empirical test was furnished by Johannes M Pennings who examined the interaction between environmental uncertainty, organization structure and various aspects of performance. Pennings carried out an empirical study on a sample of retail brokerage offices in which aspects of their market environment such as competitiveness, change and munificence, versus organizational arrangements such as decision making templates, power distribution were juxtaposed for possible implications for performance. While structural attributes of offices strongly impacted performance, the evidence for "contingency" was less pronounced. [9]

It can be concluded that there is ‘no one best way’ or approach in management or doing things, different situation calls for different approach to handle, manage, and solve the arising issue concerned. [10] Management and organization is an ‘Open system’, which embrace anomalies or challenges every now and then, which requires ‘adaptable’ and ‘situational’ solution in order to overcome or solve the problem or issue concerned. [11] Other situational or contingency factors are ‘changes in customer demand for goods and services, change in government policy or law, change in environment or climate change, and so forth.

Stakeholders

Contingency theory has briefly been mentioned within the context of the larger scope of stakeholder theory. There are numerous ways to approach stakeholder theory, taking into account the various factors that increase the chances of corporate or organizational livelihood. [12] In order to do so, what is of relevance is to consider the various inflection points that different stakeholder interests may (or may not) pose. As a result, there exists a strategic contingency to stakeholder management. Numerous interests may either conflict or else agree however yet may aim in different directions, and as such are context to complexity in the pursuit of organizational objectives as well as the fulfillment of purpose itself. [13]

As organizations seek to balance different perspectives among stakeholder interests, what is of importance to analyze is the varying aspects of what makes a stakeholder relevant. Since there is a contingent dimension to stakeholder interests, influence may be weighted against some internal order of relevance, as decided by the model of governance in action. The model may be more or less arbitrary depending on a number of factors such as level of criticality between the shareholders in question, management style or styles, as well as the moderating role of external influences.

Context is also applied to whether stakeholders are classified as internal or external. Normative aspects of what ought to make a good decision-making model may also be considered. Research is extensive on what constitutes a good stakeholder strategy with numerous claims and marginal levels of consensus and therefore can be said to be a contingent research area itself. Actors must therefore choose from a wide array of alternatives when considering what is the best model for stakeholder management in a particular situation, so as to facilitate the sustained efforts and performance of organization, financially as well as looking at the broader scope of organizational objectives with a holistic view. [14] [15]

Support of Contingency Theory

The first major strength of the contingency theory is that it has the support of an abundance of empirical research (Peters, Hartke, & Pohlman, 1985; Strube & Garcia 1981). This is critical as it proves that the theory is reliable, based on various trials and research. The contingency theory is also beneficial as it widened our understanding of leadership, by persuading individuals to consider the various impacts of situations on leaders. Another strength of the contingency theory is its predictive nature that provides an understanding to the types of leaders that will be most effective in specific situations. This theory is also helpful, as it suggests that leaders do not have to be effective in all situations and that there are specific scenarios in which a leader might not be the perfect fit. The last major advantage of the contingency theory is that it provides concrete data on leadership styles, that is applicable to organizations developing their own leadership profiles. [16]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Fiedler, F. E. (1993). The contingency model: New directions for leadership utilization. In Matteson and Ivancevich (Eds.), Management and Organizational Behavior Classics (pp. 333-345).
  2. ↑ Fiedler, F. E. (1993). The contingency model: New directions for leadership utilization. In Matteson and Ivancevich (Eds.), Management and Organizational Behavior Classics (p. 334).
  3. ↑ Fiedler, F. E. (1993). The contingency model: New directions for leadership utilization. In Matteson and Ivancevich (Eds.), Management and Organizational Behavior Classics (p. 334).
  4. ↑ Fiedler, F. E. (1993). The contingency model: New directions for leadership utilization. In Matteson and Ivancevich (Eds.), Management and Organizational Behavior Classics (pp. 334-335).
  5. ↑ Fiedler, F. E. (1993). The contingency model: New directions for leadership utilization. In Matteson and Ivancevich (Eds.), Management and Organizational Behavior Classics (pp. 335).
  6. ↑ The Contingency Model--New Directions for Leadership Utilization, Journal of Contemporary Business, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Autumn 1978) pg 65-80
  7. ↑ Fiedler, Fred E., (1993). The Contingency Model: New directions for leadership utilization. In. Matteson and Ivancevich (Ed’s.), Management and Organizational Behavior Classics.
  8. ↑ Scott, W.R. (1981). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems . Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall Inc. ISBN   9780136419778.
  9. ↑ The Relevance of the Structural-Contingency Model for Organizational Effectiveness Author(s): Johannes M. Pennings Source: Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 3, (Sep., 1975), pp. 393–410
  10. ↑ E. Friedberg (1997): Local Orders. The Dynamics of Organized Action. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. See chapter 6.
  11. ↑ Jeong Chun Hai @Ibrahim, & Nor Fadzlina Nawi. (2012). Principles of Public Administration: Malaysian Perspectives. Kuala Lumpur: Pearson Publishers. ISBN   978-967-349-233-6
  12. ↑ Zattoni, Alessandro (2011). "Who Should Control a Corporation? Toward a Contingency Stakeholder Model for Allocating Ownership Rights". Journal of Business Ethics. 103 (2): 255–274. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0864-3. S2CID   155081972 . Retrieved 26 March 2023.
  13. ↑ Brouthers, Keith D.; Gelderman, Maarten; Arens, Patrick (2007). "The Influence of Ownership on Performance: Stakeholder and Strategic Contingency Perspectives". Schmalenbach Business Review. 59 (3): 225–242. doi:10.1007/BF03396749. S2CID   166700628 . Retrieved 26 March 2023.
  14. ↑ Gupta, Amit (1995). "A stakeholder analysis approach for interorganizational systems". Industrial Management & Data Systems. 95 (6): 3–7. doi:10.1108/02635579510091269 . Retrieved 26 March 2023.
  15. ↑ "Toward a Contingency Theory Of Stakeholder Relevance and the Stakeholder Mapping Process". Angelo State University Library. Retrieved 26 March 2023.
  16. ↑ Northouse, Peter (2007). "Contingency Theory". Leadership: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publishing. pp. 74–87.

Related Research Articles

Industrial and organizational psychology "focuses the lens of psychological science on a key aspect of human life, namely, their work lives. In general, the goals of I-O psychology are to better understand and optimize the effectiveness, health, and well-being of both individuals and organizations." It is an applied discipline within psychology and is an international profession. I-O psychology is also known as occupational psychology in the United Kingdom, organisational psychology in Australia and New Zealand, and work and organizational (WO) psychology throughout Europe and Brazil. Industrial, work, and organizational (IWO) psychology is the broader, more global term for the science and profession.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Leadership</span> Quality of one individual or group influencing or guiding others based on authority

Leadership, both as a research area and as a practical skill, encompasses the ability of an individual, group, or organization to "lead", influence, or guide other individuals, teams, or entire organizations.

 Reviewing request.

The path–goal theory, also known as the path–goal theory of leader effectiveness or the path–goal model, is a leadership theory developed by Robert House, an Ohio State University graduate, in 1971 and revised in 1996. The theory states that a leader's behavior is contingent to the satisfaction, motivation and performance of his or her subordinates. The revised version also argues that the leader engages in behaviors that complement subordinate's abilities and compensate for deficiencies. According to Robert House and John Antonakis, the task-oriented elements of the path–goal model can be classified as a form of instrumental leadership.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Organizational theory</span> Organizational theory

Organizational theory refers to a series of interrelated concepts that involve the sociological study of the structures and operations of formal social organizations. Organizational theory also seeks to explain how interrelated units of organization either connect or do not connect with each other. Organizational theory also concerns understanding how groups of individuals behave, which may differ from the behavior of an individual. The behavior organizational theory often focuses on is goal-directed. Organizational theory covers both intra-organizational and inter-organizational fields of study.

Organizational behavior or organisational behaviour is the: "study of human behavior in organizational settings, the interface between human behavior and the organization, and the organization itself". Organizational behavioral research can be categorized in at least three ways:

Fred Edward Fiedler was one of the leading researchers of industrial and organizational psychology in the 20th century. He helped shape psychology and was a leading psychologist.

Transactional leadership is a type of leadership style that focuses on the exchange of skills, knowledge, resources, or effort between leaders and their subordinates. This leadership style priortizes individual interests and extrinsic motivation as means to obtain a desired outcome. It relies on a system of penalties and rewards to achieve short-term goals.

Organizational ethics is the ethics of an organization, and it is how an organization responds to an internal or external stimulus. Organizational ethics is interdependent with the organizational culture. Although it is to both organizational behavior and industrial and organizational psychology as well as business ethics on the micro and macro levels, organizational ethics is neither organizational behavior nor industrial and organizational psychology, nor is it solely business ethics. Organizational ethics express the values of an organization to its employees and/or other entities irrespective of governmental and/or regulatory laws.

The goal of most research on group development is to learn why and how small groups change over time. To quality of the output produced by a group, the type and frequency of its activities, its cohesiveness, the existence of group conflict.

Cognitive resource theory (CRT) is a leadership theory of industrial and organisational psychology developed by Fred Fiedler and Joe Garcia in 1987 as a reconceptualisation of the Fiedler contingency model. The theory focuses on the influence of the leader's intelligence and experience on their reaction to stress.

Situational Leadership Theory, now named the Situational Leadership Model, is a model created by Dr. Paul Hersey and Dr. Ken Blanchard, developed while working on the widely known text book, Management of Organizational Behavior. The theory was first introduced in 1969 as "Life Cycle Theory of Leadership". During the mid-1970s, Life Cycle Theory of Leadership was renamed "Situational Leadership Theory."

The history of contingency theories of leadership goes back over more than 100 years, with foundational ideas rooted in the mechanical thought of Taylorism. Later, management science began to recognize the influence of sometimes irrational human perceptions on worker performance. This led to taxonomies of leadership behavior and to contingency theories to adapt leadership behavior to the situation.

Organizational ambidexterity refers to an organization's ability to be efficient in its management of today's business and also adaptable for coping with tomorrow's changing demand. Just as being ambidextrous means being able to use both the left and right hand equally, organizational ambidexterity requires the organizations to use both exploration and exploitation techniques to be successful.

Substitutes for leadership theory is a leadership theory first developed by Steven Kerr and John M. Jermier and published in Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance in December 1978.

Trait leadership is defined as integrated patterns of personal characteristics that reflect a range of individual differences and foster consistent leader effectiveness across a variety of group and organizational situations. The theory of trait leadership is developed from early leadership research which focused primarily on finding a group of heritable attributes that differentiate leaders from nonleaders. Leader effectiveness refers to the amount of influence a leader has on individual or group performance, followers’ satisfaction, and overall effectiveness. Many scholars have argued that leadership is unique to only a select number of individuals and that these individuals possess certain immutable traits that cannot be developed. Although this perspective has been criticized immensely over the past century, scholars still continue to study the effects of personality traits on leader effectiveness. Research has demonstrated that successful leaders differ from other people and possess certain core personality traits that significantly contribute to their success. Understanding the importance of these core personality traits that predict leader effectiveness can help organizations with their leader selection, training, and development practices.

Innovation leadership is a philosophy and technique that combines different leadership styles to influence employees to produce creative ideas, products, and services. The key role in the practice of innovation leadership is the innovation leader. Dr. David Gliddon (2006) developed the competency model of innovation leaders and established the concept of innovation leadership at Penn State University.

The task-relationship model is defined by Donelson Forsyth as "a descriptive model of leadership which maintains that most leadership behaviors can be classified as performance maintenance or relationship maintenances". Task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership are two models which are often compared, as they are known to produce varying outcomes under different circumstances. Task-oriented leadership is a behavioral approach in which the leader focuses on the tasks that need to be performed in order to meet certain goals, or to achieve a certain performance standard. Relationship-oriented leadership is a behavioral approach in which the leader focuses on the satisfaction, motivation and the general well-being of the team members.

Authentic leadership, while having no formal or unequivocal definition, is a growing field in academic research. The idea has also been embraced by leaders and leadership coaches, who view it as an alternative to leaders who emphasize profit and share price over people and ethics. There appears to be some consensus in the literature about the qualities an authentic leader must have. These include self-awareness, the ability to trust one's thoughts, feelings, motives and values, self reflection, responsiveness to feedback, and the ability to resolve conflict in honest and non-manipulative ways. An authentic leader is supposedly able to further the success of an organization within the confines of social and ethical values, even when that seems impossible. Authentic leadership is claimed to be a superior model due to the greater trust and motivation it invokes in subordinates. Much of the evidentiary basis for authentic leadership has been called into question and papers have been retracted.

In psychology, control is a person's ability or perception of their ability to affect themselves, others, their conditions, their environment or some other circumstance. Control over oneself or others can extend to the regulation of emotions, thoughts, actions, impulses, memory, attention or experiences. There are several types of control, including:

References

Further reading

son Publishers.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.