What are the situational perspectives on leadership

What are the situational perspectives on leadership?

Liberty University

AVIA 245 Aviation Leadership

Professor: Jim Molloy

2022

What are the situational perspectives on leadership?

As early as 1948, Ralph Stogdill stated that “the qualities, characteristics, and skills required in a

leader are determined to a large extent by the demands of the situation in which he is to function as a

leader.” In addition, it had been observed that two major leader behaviors, initiating structure and

of leadership, the path-goal theory of leader effectiveness, Hersey and Blanchard’s life cycle theory,

cognitive resource theory, the decision tree, and the decision process theory.71 We explore two of the

better-known situational theories of leadership, Fred Fiedler’s contingency model and Robert J. House’s

path-goal theory, here. Victor Vroom, Phillip Yetton, and Arthur Jago’s decision tree model also applies.

Fiedler’s Contingency Model

One of the earliest, best-known, and most controversial situation-contingent leadership theories

was set forth by Fred E. Fiedler from the University of Washington. This theory is known as the

contingency theory of leadership. According to Fiedler, organizations attempting to achieve group

effectiveness through leadership must assess the leader according to an underlying trait, assess the

situation faced by the leader, and construct a proper match between the two.

Fiedler states that leaders with high LPC scores are relationship oriented—they need to develop and

maintain close interpersonal relationships. They tend to evaluate their least-preferred coworkers in

fairly favorable terms. Task accomplishment is a secondary need to this type of leader and becomes

important only after the need for relationships is reasonably well satisfied. In contrast, leaders with low

LPC scores tend to evaluate the individuals with whom they least like to work fairly negatively. They are

task-oriented people, and only after tasks have been accomplished are low-LPC leaders likely to work on

establishing good social and interpersonal relations.

The Situational Factor

Some situations favor leaders more than others do. To Fiedler, situational favorableness is the

degree to which leaders have control and influence and therefore feel that they can determine the

outcomes of a group interaction. Several years later, Fiedler changed his situational factor from

group members.

combinations, Fiedler examined a large number of leadership situations. He argued that most leaders

have a relatively unchangeable or dominant style, so organizations need to design job situations to fit

the leader.

While the model has not been fully tested and tests have often produced mixed or contradictory

findings, Fiedler’s research indicates that relationship-oriented (high-LPC) leaders are much more

effective under conditions of intermediate favorability than under either highly favorable or highly

unfavorable situations. Fiedler attributes the success of relationship-oriented leaders in situations with

intermediate favorability to the leader’s nondirective, permissive attitude; a more directive attitude

could lead to anxiety in followers, conflict in the group, and a lack of cooperation.

For highly favorable and unfavorable situations, task-oriented leaders (those with a low LPC) are

very effective. As tasks are accomplished, a task-oriented leader allows the group to perform its highly

structured tasks without imposing more task-directed behavior. The job gets done without the need for

the leader’s direction. Under unfavorable conditions, task-oriented behaviors, such as setting goals,

detailing work methods, and guiding and controlling work behaviors, move the group toward task

Although Fiedler’s theory often identifies appropriate leader-situation matches and has received

broad support, it is not without critics. Some note that it characterizes leaders through reference to

their attitudes or personality traits (LPC) while it explains the leader’s effectiveness through their

behaviors—those with a particular trait will behave in a particular fashion. The theory fails to make the

connection between the least-preferred coworker attitude and subsequent behaviors. In addition, some

tests of the model have produced mixed or contradictory findings. Finally, what is the true meaning of

the LPC score—exactly what is being revealed by a person who sees their least-preferred coworker in

positive or negative terms? Robert J. House and Ram N. Aditya recently noted that, in spite of the

Path-Goal Theory

Robert J. House and Martin Evans, while on the faculty at the University of Toronto, developed a

useful leadership theory. Like Fiedler’s, it asserts that the type of leadership needed to enhance

organizational effectiveness depends on the situation in which the leader is placed. Unlike Fiedler,

however, House and Evans focus on the leader’s observable behavior. Thus, managers can either match

the situation to the leader or modify the leader’s behavior to fit the situation.

The model of leadership advanced by House and Evans is called the path-goal theory of leadership

satisfaction en route.

rewards may be pay, recognition, promotions, or any other item that gives members an incentive to

work hard to achieve goals. Effective leaders also give clear instructions so that ambiguities about work

are reduced and followers understand how to do their jobs effectively. They provide coaching, guidance,

and training so that followers can perform the task expected of them. They also remove barriers to task

accomplishment, correcting shortages of materials, inoperative machinery, or interfering policies.

Second, leaders must be flexible enough to use different leadership styles as appropriate. To be

effective, leaders must engage in a wide variety of behaviors. Without an extensive repertoire of

behaviors at their disposal, a leader’s effectiveness is limited. All team members will not, for example,

have the same need for autonomy. The leadership style that motivates organizational members with

strong needs for autonomy (participative leadership) is different from that which motivates and satisfies

members with weaker autonomy needs (directive leadership). The degree to which leadership behavior

matches situational factors will determine members’ motivation, satisfaction, and performance.

Behavior Dimensions

According to path-goal theory, there are four important dimensions of leader behavior, each of

personal needs of organizational members. Supportive leaders are friendly, approachable, and

guide work, and schedule and coordinate the activities of members. Directive leadership is called for

when role ambiguity is high. Removing uncertainty and providing needed guidance can increase

members’ effort, job satisfaction, and job performance.

related activities and consider their opinions and suggestions when making decisions. Participative

leadership is effective when tasks are unstructured. Participative leadership is used to great effect when

leaders need help in identifying work procedures and where followers have the expertise to provide this

help.

improvement in performance, emphasize excellence, and demonstrate confidence in organizational

members’ ability to attain high standards. Achievement-oriented leaders thus capitalize on members’

needs for achievement and use goal-setting theory to great advantage.

Cross-Cultural Context

increasingly diverse. This naturally leads to the question “Is there a need for a new and different style of

leadership?”

The vast majority of the contemporary scholarship directed toward understanding leaders and the

leadership process has been conducted in North America and Western Europe. Westerners have

“developed a highly romanticized, heroic view of leadership.” Leaders occupy center stage in

organizational life. We use leaders in our attempts to make sense of the performance of our groups,

clubs, organizations, and nations. We see them as key to organizational success and profitability, we

credit them with organizational competitiveness, and we blame them for organizational failures. At the

national level, recall that President Reagan brought down Communism and the Berlin Wall, President

Bush won the Gulf War, and President Clinton brought unprecedented economic prosperity to the

This larger-than-life role ascribed to leaders and the Western romance with successful leaders raise

the question “How representative is our understanding of leaders and leadership across cultures?” That

does not exist. Cultural differences work to enhance and diminish the impact of leadership styles on

group effectiveness. For example, when leaders empower their followers, the effect for job satisfaction

in India has been found to be negative, while in the United States, Poland, and Mexico, the effect is

positive. The existing evidence suggests similarities as well as differences in such areas as the effects of

leadership styles, the acceptability of influence attempts, and the closeness and formality of

relationships. The distinction between task and relationship-oriented leader behavior, however, does

appear to be meaningful across cultures. Leaders whose behaviors reflect support, kindness, and

concern for their followers are valued and effective in Western and Asian cultures. Yet it is also clear

that democratic, participative, directive, and contingent-based rewards and punishment do not produce