What Is the Contingency Theory?

Contingency Theory, also known as the context theory. After the 1960s, research on leadership effectiveness was transferred to contingency theory. Contingency theory believes that the effectiveness of leadership does not depend on the constant quality and behavior of the leader, but on the cooperative relationship between the leader, the leader and the situation conditions, that is, the effectiveness of leadership is the leader and the leader And leadership situation as a function of three variables. ^[1]

Contingency theory is seen as a dynamic process. Because trait theory cannot accurately predict the behavior of leaders, it is even difficult to explain the diversity of leaders behaviors in different situations, and behavior theory is too simple and sometimes difficult to justify in explaining some leadership behaviors, such as for the same leadership Why behaviors can have different effects in different groups cannot be satisfactorily explained, so researchers have turned their attention to the context of leadership. A large number of situational factors affecting leadership effectiveness have been gradually identified, so researchers have tried to integrate these situational factors to form a variety of contingent leadership models. The more representative are: contingency model of leadership effectiveness, path-target leadership theory Life cycle theory. ^[1]

Contingency Theory Federer's Contingency Model for Leadership Effectiveness

After long-term research, F. Fiedler proposed a contingency model of leadership effectiveness. He believes that any form of leadership may be effective, and the key lies in the degree of matching between the leadership style and the specific organizational situation. The effectiveness of leadership depends on conditions in three dimensions: the relationship between the leader and the person being led, the task structure, and position power. If conditions are good in all three dimensions, the situation is good for leadership. ^[1] Specifically, if the leader is accepted and respected by followers (first dimension), the task is highly structured, that is, everything can be described and programmed in a stylized manner (second dimension), and Leader's position power and authority are very formal and solid (third dimension), then this situation is beneficial to the leader. However, if the opposite occurs (all three dimensions are low), the situation is very bad for the leader. ^[1] Through research, Fidler has proved that favorable circumstances and leadership style jointly determine leadership effectiveness. Generally speaking, task-oriented or stubborn, authoritarian leaders are most effective in very favorable and very unfavorable situations; human-oriented or democratic leaders are most effective when the situation is only moderately favorable. The complex relationship between situational variables and leadership patterns is shown in Table 1. ^[1]

Table 1 The relationship between Federer's leadership and situational variables ^[1]

Situation	The relationship between the leader and the led	Task structure	Job capacity	Effective leadership
1	good	Structured	Strong	Task-oriented
2	good	Structured	weak	Task-oriented
3	good	No structure	Strong	Task-oriented
4	good	No structure	weak	Crowd relationship orientation
5	bad	Structured	Strong	Crowd relationship orientation
6	bad	Structured	weak	Crowd relationship orientation
7	bad	No structure	Strong	Crowd relationship orientation
8	bad	No structure	weak	Task-oriented

To determine a leader's leadership style and inclination, Federer developed a tool called the least-preferred-coworker scale (LPC), which measures the leader's LPC score , Can identify the level of motivation of the leader. ^[1] Low LPC leaders are mainly motivated by the task, meaning that these leaders mainly get satisfaction from completing the task, but if the task is completed in an acceptable way, the low LPC leader will move to the second incentive Level, that is, establishing and maintaining relationships with followers. High LPC leaders are primarily motivated by relationships, and these leaders are primarily satisfied by building and maintaining close interpersonal relationships. If high LPC leaders already have a good relationship with their followers, they will move to the second level, which is to complete the task. Federer establishes a contingency model of leadership effectiveness in which leaders LPC, leadership style, and context interact. ^[1]

Fiedler's Contingency Theory Model

For why task leaders are successful in extraordinary circumstances, Federer explains that in very favorable situations, the leader has power, informal support, relatively structured tasks, and an organization that is ready to accept leadership. Members expect to be told what to do. In this case, there is no need to discuss with all members, the task-oriented leader only needs to give orders, and the organization can develop in the set direction. At this point, the leader's wise choice is: It is better to make a wrong decision than to do nothing. Leaders who have the courage to take responsibility and make the decisions necessary to accomplish their tasks are often effective leaders. ^[1]

In a relatively favorable situation, the leader is not fully accepted by the group members, the tasks are not completely structured, and the leader is only granted partial power and authority. Federer predicts that humanity, democracy, and relationship orientation are the most effective at this time, and this conclusion has been confirmed by relevant research. Federer's contingency model not only absorbs previous theories about leadership styles or types, but also introduces context variables to try to establish a coupling relationship between the two. This is more suitable for explaining the diversity and effectiveness of leadership behaviors. . The model has strong operation, and it has practical guidance significance for the selection and appointment of leaders, which has led to a series of studies. ^[1]

- Contingency Theory House's Path-Target Leadership Theory

Following Federer's contingency theory, in the early 1970s, a new type of leadership contingency theory received considerable attention. This is the path goal theories of Professor RJ Howse of the University of Toronto, Canada. This theory extends the research of WGEvans and combines the theory of expectations with the two-factor theory of leadership behaviors of Ohio University. The basic premise of this theory is that some leadership behaviors are effective because in this context, they help subordinates achieve work-related goals. ^[1] House and others believe that leadership is a process of motivating subordinates. Leadership is effective only when it is applied to different subordinates and environments. The core of the theory is that leaders are required to help employees clear the way to achieve their goals by grasping organization and caring about production, and caring for people with a considerate spirit to meet their needs; helping employees to reach their predetermined goals. Therefore, House has proposed four leadership styles: guided leadership, supportive leadership, participatory leadership, and achievement-oriented leadership. ^[1]

Guided leadership: let subordinates know exactly what they expect them to do, and the leader will give specific guidance during the process, without the need for subordinates to participate in what to do and how to make decisions. ^[1]

Supportive Leadership: Leaders are friendly and approachable, showing only genuine concern for the actions of their subordinates. ^[1]

Participatory leadership: The leader seeks and adopts the suggestions of the subordinates, but the decision is still made by the leader. ^[1]

Achievement-oriented leadership: Leaders set challenging goals for their subordinates and give them full encouragement to let them manage to reach them. ^[1]

Fidler believes that once a leader s style or type is formed, it is difficult to change it, so only different types of leaders can be selected according to different organizational situations, and House's path-targeted leadership theory believes that the various Leadership is not anchored to a single leader, but a behavior model that can be used by the same leader in different situations. House is concerned about what kind of leadership methods under these conditions can pave the way for subordinates to reach their goals. On this issue, House has added the personal characteristics of followers, that is, the personal characteristics of followers and the characteristics of the organizational environment jointly determine the subordinate's perception of various leadership styles, and it is the subordinate's perception of leadership behavior that affects their satisfaction. Degree, role and goal clarity and subsequent performance. ^[1]

Carmen's Life Cycle Theory

The theory was proposed by Professor Carmen of the University of Ohio. His main point is that the behavior of the leader should be adapted to the maturity of the person being led, that is, as the maturity of the person being gradually improved, the leader's leadership style should also be changed accordingly. The so-called leader's maturity refers to psychological maturity, including sense of accomplishment, work experience, and good education. Age is a factor in maturity, but it is not the most important factor. The maturity of employees has a development process, that is, from immature, preliminary maturity, and more mature to mature. As a result, the way leaders are led must change. Carmen distinguished four main types of leadership: empowerment, participatory, persuasive, and imperative. ^[1]

According to the life cycle theory, "high work, high relationship" leaders may not always be effective, and similarly, "low work, low relationship" leaders may not always be invalid. The key is to depend on the leadership adopted Does the approach match the maturity of the person being led? ^[1]