Contingency Theories

1. Given the description of the leadership situation facing the airplane crash survivors described in Chapter 1, how would leader–member exchange, the normative decision model, the Situational Leadership model, the contingency model, and the path–goal theory prescribe that a leader should act?

2. Can leaders be flexible in how they interact with others? Do you believe leaders can change their behavior? Their personalities?

3. Think of a leadership situation with which you are familiar. Apply each of the theories in this chapter to the situation. Which theory best fits the interaction of the leader, followers, and situation in your example? Does any theory allow you to predict a likely or preferred outcome for a current challenge?

Contingency Theories of Leadership

Introduction

If we were to provide an extremely short summary of the book to this point, we would say leadership is a process that involves aspects of the leader, the followers, and the situation. In Part 1 we discussed the process aspects, while Part 2 was devoted to the leader. Part 3 focused on the followers, and in the previous chapter we discussed the situational components of leadership. You may have also noted that while we attempted to focus exclusively on the component of interest for each section, there were often overlapping areas in our leader–follower–situation (L-F-S) model. The overlap is genuine, and our attempts to segregate the concepts were done merely for simplicity.

It is also important to note that in adopting our L-F-S model, we deliberately followed a tradition in scientific theory development known as  parsimony . A model that is parsimonious is one with the greatest explanatory power while using the fewest predictor variables as possible. We have chosen what we believe are the three most powerful predictor variables: the leader, the followers, and the situation.

But readers should recognize that the L-F-S model by no means encompasses all the potential variables or outcomes in understanding leadership. A study by Dinh and colleagues highlights this complexity. First, they report how much the leadership field has developed in recent decades. In their research, they identified a total of 66 different leadership theory domains. But even more important, they report that

no unified theory of leadership currently exists. Leadership theory emphasizes many outcomes, from how leaders are perceived to how leaders affect unit performance; it involves actions of group members as well as those of formal leaders; it has been applied to levels that include events, individuals, dyads, groups, organizations, and political systems; it has focused on immediate and delayed effects; and it often incorporates contextual differences. Thus, it is not surprising that leadership involves 66 different theoretical domains and a wide variety of methodological approaches.1

547

But for this text, we will stick with just three: the leader, the followers, and the situation.

It is safe to say the world of leadership is a complex one. Even in our L-F-S model, multiple aspects come into play. Leadership is contingent on the interplay of all three aspects of our model, and these contingencies are the focus of this chapter.

It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, author

This chapter reviews five well-known contingency theories of leadership. The first, leader–member exchange (LMX) theory, focuses on the contingencies and interactions between the leader and the followers. The remaining four theories address certain aspects of the leader, the followers, and the situation. These theories also share several other similarities. First, because they are theories rather than someone’s personal opinions, these models have been the focus of a considerable amount of empirical research over the years. Second, these theories implicitly assume that leaders are able to accurately diagnose or assess key aspects of the followers or the leadership situation. Third, with the exception of Fiedler’s contingency model,2,3 leaders are assumed to be able to act in a flexible manner. In other words, leaders can and should change their behaviors as situational and follower characteristics change. Fourth, a correct match between situational and follower characteristics and leaders’ behaviors is assumed to have a positive effect on group or organizational outcomes. Thus these theories maintain that leadership effectiveness is maximized when leaders correctly make their behaviors contingent on certain situational and follower characteristics. Because of these similarities, Chemers4 argued that these contingency theories are more similar than different. He said they differ primarily in terms of the types of situational and follower characteristics upon which various leader behaviors should be contingent.

Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Theory

In Chapter 1 we first noted a contingency when we mentioned the “in-group” and “out-group” interactions between leaders and followers. These relationships were originally described as vertical dyad linkages5 but have developed over time into what is most often referred to today as  leader–member exchanges  (LMXs). The main premise of these theories has remained unchanged, however. Fundamentally, LMX argues that leaders do not treat all followers as if they were a uniform group of equals. Rather, the leader forms specific and unique linkages with each subordinate, thus creating a series of dyadic relationships. In general, as just noted, the linkages tend to be differentiated into two major groups.

In the out-group, or low-quality exchange relationships, interpersonal interaction is largely restricted to fulfilling contractual obligations.6 With other subordinates (the in-group), leaders form high-quality exchange relationships that go well beyond “just what the job requires.” These high-quality relationships are indeed “exchanges” because both parties benefit. In exchange for higher levels of task performance7 from subordinates, leaders may contribute empowerment,8 sponsorship of subordinates in social networks,9 and mentoring.10

548

There has been considerable evolution in LMX research and thinking over time. Early on, the focus was on stages of development as the process of the relationship developed. These stages typically were described as follows:

1. Role-taking  happens early in a follower’s work experience. Here the leader offers opportunities and evaluates the follower’s performance and potential.

2. Role-making  is the stage where a role is created based on a process of trust building. This is a fragile stage, and any perceived betrayals can lead to the follower being dropped from the developing in-group and assigned to the out-group.

3. Routinization  occurs as the relationship becomes well established. It is at this stage that similarities (for the in-group) and differences (often accentuated for the out-group) become cemented.

Perhaps the biggest leap forward in LMX came 25 years after its introduction, in an article by Graen and Uhl-Bien.11 In this publication, the authors expanded the descriptive portion of the model, which continued to focus on the dyadic processes between the leader and followers. However, the model also changed from merely describing the process to proposing a prescriptive process that would enhance organizational effectiveness. Most of us can identify with the descriptive components of LMX by thinking back to coaches or teachers from our past who had in-groups and out-groups. Now the model suggests behaviors that the leader should engage in to actively develop relationships (hence the prescriptive label) and build more in-group relations across the follower pool. This process of leadership is outlined in Table 14.1.

The LMX leadership-making process moves from left to right in the table as indicated by the time arrow. Perhaps most important in the prescriptive notion of the model is the focus on the leader’s responsibility to enhance overall organizational effectiveness by developing more in-groups and reducing the number of out-groups.

TABLE 14.1 The Cycle of Leadership Making

Source: Adapted from G. B. Graen and M. Uhl-Bien, “Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership: Development of Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Theory over 25 Years: Applying a Multi-level Multi-domain Perspective,” Leadership Quarterly 6 (1995), pp. 219–47.

In a world of instant messages that require lightning-fast responses, Steven B. Sample, former president of the University of Southern California, touted the benefits of “artful procrastination.” In his book The Contrarian’s Guide to Leadership, a key lesson is never make a decision today that can reasonably be put off to tomorrow:

With respect to timing, almost all great leaders have understood that making quick decisions is typically counterproductive. I’m not talking about what to have for breakfast or what tie to wear today. President Harry Truman almost personified this concept. When anyone told him they needed a decision, the first thing he would ask is “How much time do I have—a week, 10 seconds, six months?” What he understood was that the nature of the decision that a leader makes depends to a large extent on how much time he has in which to make it. He also understood that delaying a decision as long as reasonably possible generally leads to the best decisions being made.

Other lessons from Sample include these:

· Think gray. Don’t form opinions if you don’t have to.

· Think free. Move several steps beyond traditional brainstorming.

· Listen first, talk later. And when you listen, do so artfully.

· You can’t copy your way to the top.

Source: S. B. Sample, The Contrarian’s Guide to Leadership. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003).

554

within the feasible set that is farthest to the right. The arrangement of processes from AI to GII provides an increasing amount of follower development by moving from autocratic to group decisions.

Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors.

Thomas Huxley, English biologist and defender of evolutionary science

Finally, if neither time nor follower development is a concern and multiple options are available in the feasible set of alternatives, the leader may select a style that best meets his or her needs. This may be the process with which the leader is most comfortable (“I’m a CII kind of guy”), or it may be a process in which he or she would like to develop more skill.

Concluding Thoughts about the Normative Decision Model

Having looked at this model in some detail, we will now look at it from the perspective of the leader–follower–situation (L-F-S) framework. To do this, we have used the different decision processes and the questions from the decision tree to illustrate different components in the L-F-S framework (see  Figure 14.2 ). Several issues become apparent in this depiction. First, for ease of presentation we have

FIGURE 14.2 Factors from the Normative Decision Model and the Interactional Framework

555

placed each question or factor solely within one circle or another. Nevertheless, we could argue that some of the questions could or should be placed in another part of the model. For example, the question “Do I have sufficient information to make a high-quality decision?” is placed in the leader block. It might be argued, however, that no leader could answer this question without some knowledge of the situation. Strictly speaking, therefore, perhaps this question should be placed in the intersection between the leader and the situation. Nonetheless, in keeping with our theme that leadership involves interactions among all three elements, it seems sufficient at this point to illustrate them in their simplest state.

A second issue also becomes apparent when the normative decision model is viewed through the L-F-S framework. Notice how the Vroom and Yetton 26  model shifts focus away from the leader toward both the situation and, to an even greater degree, the followers. There are no questions about the leader’s personality, motivations, values, or attitudes. In fact, the leader’s preference is considered only after higher-priority factors have been considered. The only underlying assumption is that the leader is interested in implementing a high-quality decision (when quality is an issue) that is acceptable to followers (when acceptance is critical to implementation). Given that assumption and a willingness to consider aspects of the situation and aspects of the followers, the leader’s behavior can be channeled into more effective decision-making processes.

A third issue is that the L-F-S framework organizes concepts in a familiar conceptual structure. This is an advantage even for a theory with as limited a focus as the normative decision model (that is, decision making); it will be even more helpful later as we consider more complex theories.

Finally, because the normative decision model is a leadership theory rather than Vroom and Yetton’s personal opinions, a number of empirical studies have investigated the model’s efficacy. Research conducted by Field 27  and Vroom and Jago 28 , 29  provided strong support for the model; these studies showed that leaders were much more likely to make effective or successful decisions when they followed its tenets than when they ignored them. Nevertheless, although leaders may be more apt to make effective decisions when using the model, there is no evidence to show that these leaders are more effective overall than leaders not using the model. 30  The latter findings again point out that both the leadership process and leadership effectiveness are complex phenomena; being a good decision maker is not enough to be a good leader (although it certainly helps). Other problems with the model are that it views decision making as taking place at a single point in time, 31  assumes that leaders are equally skilled at using all five decision procedures, 32  and assumes that some of the prescriptions of the model may not be the best for a given situation. For example, the normative decision model prescribes that leaders use a GII decision process if conflict may occur over a decision, but leaders may be more effective if they instead make an AI decision and avoid intragroup conflict. 33  Despite these problems, the normative model is one of the best supported of the five major contingency theories of leadership, and leaders would be wise to consider using the model when making decisions. Vroom has also converted the decision tree depicted in  Figure 14.1  to an expert system entitled Decision Making for