Contingency theories of leadership were intended to resolve the problems of Trait and Behavioural theories. To what extend have they achieved this?
MANAGEMENT 120 - Essay
'Contingency theories of leadership were intended to resolve the problems of Trait and Behavioural theories. To what extend have they achieved this?'
Katerina Gavrielidou
Lonsdale College
06021311
Introduction
From the early years of the twentieth century many leadership studies have been published, let alone thousands of pages that have been written about leadership. It is quite obvious that leadership is the most popular subject studied in the organizational sciences the last years. Most of the studies, though, emphasize on the nature of leadership in workplaces of leaders, firms and organizations. It is well known that in order for an organization to be successful and hence profitable it is necessary to have a highly effective leadership. When all the employees work to achieve organization's goals then the probability of being successful is high. And if we consider that leadership involves influencing others toward the achievement of a particular goal then we are sure that the answer in success is nothing else than leadership.
Definitions of Leadership
Many definitions of leadership have been derived from all this studies through all these years. A classical definition presents leadership as 'an interpersonal influence directed toward the achievement of a goal or goals'. The key words from the above definition are interpersonal, influence and goal. Leading is interpersonal, between people. Thus we see that a leader has to do with more than one person. A leader has to lead a group of people, two or more. In addition a leader influences people. This is the ability of a leader to affect others, to make people consider his/her words and want to help him/her, follow or work in his/her team. Lastly a leader knows the goals that he/she has to achieve, the aim of his/her work and has the 'power' to drive people to these and lead them to the goals they have to attain. Thus, this traditional definition of leadership shows in overall that a leader leads two or more people toward a particular end they all have to achieve. As Kevin and Jackie Freiberg put it, leadership is 'a dynamic relationship based on mutual influence and common purpose between leaders and collaborators in which both are moved to higher levels of motivation and moral development as they affect real, intended change' (K. Freiberg & J. Freiberg, 1996). This alternative definition of leadership says in simple words that the leader is influenced by the subordinates while they work together to attain goals they both have to. Furthermore a leader is someone who is 'able to think and act creatively in non-routine situations - and who set out to influence the actions, beliefs and feelings of others' as Doyle and Smith claim (Doyle, M. E. & Smith, M. K., 2001).
Leadership versus Management
Leadership, though, should be distinguished from management. Management is a completely different issue from leadership and it has to do with organizing, planning, directing, controlling and setting goals to be achieved. Manager is someone who is hired by the organization and has been given the formal authority to deal with the above aspects. While management has to do with achieving the goals of the organization, leadership has to do with the interpersonal aspects of the manager's job. It's all about influencing, motivating, inspiriting people to work and attain ends. The main difference between managers and leaders is that people follow leaders because they want to not because they have to. Manager though, may have to use his or her formal authority to make people follow and attain goals. People thus are forced to listen to managers because they are afraid of consequences if they don't do it.
Theories of Leadership
Through the past century, three classical theoretical approaches have dominated the leadership studies. In the 1930s the Trait theory of leadership appears, while in the 1940s and 1950s researchers come across the Behavioural theory. Last but foremost, Contingency theory appears in the 1960s and 1970s. Contingency theory makes its appearance and comes to give more satisfying answers to leadership researchers.
Trait theory of Leadership
Trait theory of leadership was the first to make an appearance in the beginning of the twentieth century. Trait theory is based on the assumption that people inherit specific ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Theories of Leadership
Through the past century, three classical theoretical approaches have dominated the leadership studies. In the 1930s the Trait theory of leadership appears, while in the 1940s and 1950s researchers come across the Behavioural theory. Last but foremost, Contingency theory appears in the 1960s and 1970s. Contingency theory makes its appearance and comes to give more satisfying answers to leadership researchers.
Trait theory of Leadership
Trait theory of leadership was the first to make an appearance in the beginning of the twentieth century. Trait theory is based on the assumption that people inherit specific characteristics, traits, abilities and skills that make them more suitable to become leaders than other people. Trait approach tries to identify traits and characteristics to distinguish leaders from followers. This has been achieved by focusing on the traits of effective and successful leaders. Two main assumptions derived from trait approach are: trait theory focuses on what leaders are- their characteristics and traits- not on how they lead and on the fact that effective and successful leaders are born and not made. Trait theory categorizes traits in three groups: physical, social and personal traits. Some physical traits that trait theory presents are being handsome, energetic, well-build and tall. Social traits include being charismatic and talented, popular, talkative, diplomatic and cooperative. As for personal characteristics being self-confident, emotionally stable, tolerant of stress and responsible is important. Stogdill (1974, p.81) has identified and presented the following traits and skills that characterize effective and successful leader: willing to assume responsibility, self-confident, dominant and energetic, dependable, alert to social environment. Skills that Stodgill identified are: clever, creative, tactful and diplomatic, organized, persuasive and social skilled.
The early version of the trait theory idea was the 'Great Man' theory. The 'Great Man' theory presents firstly the idea that a leader is born not made and secondly that great leaders have inherit traits and characteristics. These particular theories present leaders as heroes and mythical people who were destined to help others in great crises and in non-normal situations. According to Doyle and Smith they are 'the stuff of generals who outwit their opponents, politicians who convince and channel groups into action, and people who take control of a crisis' (Doyle, M. E. & Smith, M. K., 2001). Such individuals are Gandhi, Napoleon, Great Alexander, Joan of Arc. It was these persons that took control when it was needed. As we can see, the term is 'Great Man' and not 'Great Woman'. This happens because by that time leadership was considered to be a male's job only, particularly in the military leadership where women had nothing to do with army. Moreover the trait theory is as 'The Big Five' or as the 'Five Factor Model'. It is assumed by this that human personality varies along five dimensions which are: openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism.
But one problem appears in the trait theory. Trait theory has not identified key traits that can surely distinguish leaders from followers. It does presents some main traits of a leader but it fails to judge whether these traits are inherit to leaders or whether they can be developed through education and special training. Also researchers of trait theory identified characteristics and traits of a leader whatever the situation was. In other words they were definite that leaders of every type would have exactly the same traits. As Sadler says 'they minimized the impact of the situation' (Sadler 1997). It is enough If we only think of Margaret Thatcher, Mao Zedong or Nelson Mandela. We immediately see that we are talking about different kind of leadership and situations.
Behavioral theory of Leadership
But since trait theory was not enough to identify leaders from non-leaders new theories of leadership began to appear. As a result of the unclear traits of leaders that trait theory presented, leadership studies moved from leader's traits to behaviour. They now examine how leaders behave and what they do rather than what they are. Behavioural theory appears in the 1940s and 1950s with the main assumption that great leaders are made, not born. Behavioural theory emphasizes on the actions of leaders and their behaviour in non normal situations and not on their traits and characteristics. Thus leadership can be learned through teaching, observation and training. Theorists have developed training programs with the main assumption that effective leadership can be learned and leaders can be trained.
Behavioural theorists presented various styles of leadership, many with different names, where the basic ideas were similar. Despite the great number of styles that appeared to describe behaviors of effective leaders, the following ones are the dominant. First of all we have concern for task. Here leaders focus on the achievement of objectives and they expect high productivity of their subordinates. They find effective ways of organizing employees to attain their high standards of production. Second style is concern for people. Leaders look upon their subordinates, they care about their needs, problems and interests and they don't face workers as means of achieving goals. After comes directive leadership where leaders take decisions and expect employees to follow their instructions and directions. Lastly comes participative leadership where we have cooperation among leaders and employees since leaders share decision-making with subordinates (Wright 1996: 36-7).
One of the most famous behavioral leadership studies has been done at the University of Michigan in the late of 1940s and 1950s. The university of Michigan has classified two styles of leader's behaviour: employee-oriented and production-oriented. The main concern of employee-oriented leaders was the interpersonal aspect of leadership, the relationship among leaders and employees, and employee's welfare. On the other hand, the main concern for production-oriented leaders was the achievement of the goals and the focus on the technical aspects of a job. What appears though to have better results was the employee-oriented style. This style yields higher productivity and more job satisfaction than the rest of the styles. Moreover Theory-X and Theory-Y leadership styles as were introduced by Douglas McGregor was another identification on behavioral styles of leadership. Theory X leaders viewing employees as negative preferring an autocratic style, while Theory Y leaders viewing employees with positive mood preferring a participative style. Theory-X leaders believed that employees work only for money, they are lazy and most of the time uncooperative. On contrast, Theory-Y leaders viewed workers as hard-working, cooperative and with positive attitude.
The University of Michigan studies was the basis for the development of the Managerial Grid or Leadership Grid as others know it. The Managerial Grid model developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton and presented five different behavioral styles of leadership each one with different combinations of concern for people and concern for production. The five styles of leadership are: impoverished, country club, produce or perish, middle-of-the road, and team. The impoverished style is characterized by low concern for people and production and seeks only to keep leaders out of problems. The country club style has high concern for people and low concern for production with the intention to make a safe environment in the organization and trust that employees will be positively responsive in this style. The produce or perish style is known for high concern for production and low concern for people. The primary aid of this style is to achieve the organization's goals with the assumption that it is not necessary to think of employees needs as relevant to these goals. The middle-of-the road style is characterized by a balance between concern for people and concern for task. Finally, the team leadership style is characterized by high concern for people and production with the main purpose of establishing continuation and cohesion among workers and with the aid of giving them a feeling of commitment to the organization. According to managerial grid, team style was the best to be chosen. High combinations of concern for both people and production was the best prescription for achieving better and higher results.
Contingency theories of leadership
Unfortunately like Trait theory Behavioural theory did not manage to understand the influence of various situations on leadership styles. Situations, as it became known letter, has more influence as was originally though on leaders effectiveness, no matter what style was used. A new family of studies began to take place, this time called Contingency or Situational Theories of leadership. Contingency theories of leadership appeared in the late 1960s and 1970s and focus on different situational factors (people, task, situation, type of organization, technologies used, strategies) related to the environment that might determine which particular style of leadership is best suited in each situation. It is also based on the assumption that there is no one-best way of managing an organization. The most famous contingency theories of leadership are: Fiedler's contingency theory, path-goal theory and the situational leadership theory.
Fiedler's theory
Fiedler's theory, introduced in 1967, was the earliest and more extensive contingency theory. Fiedler claims that situations will create different leadership styles required for managing contingent on various factors that impinge on the situation. For instance in a repetitive task organization a certain leadership style will be effective where in another type of organization the same style will not be suitable. This theory assumes that group performance depends on two main key factors: leadership style and situational favorableness. Three things that Fiedler points out here are the following: the relationship between the leaders and the followers- if leaders are respected by followers then they gain their support and help, the structure of the task- if tasks are clearly spelled out as to goals, methods and standards of performance then it is more possible that leaders will be able to exert influence, and the position power of the leader in which greater position power makes leader's influence bigger (Fiedler and Garcia 1987: 51 - 67. See, also, Fiedler 1997).
Path-goal theory
Path-goal theory made an appearance in 1917 by Robert House and proposes that leadership effectiveness depends on subordinates characteristics such as locus of control, ability, the need for affiliation and work ability, and work-environment characteristics such as the nature of the work group, authority system and the nature of the task. Path-goal theory presents four leader behaviour styles. Directive leadership where leaders give guidance and directions to subordinates for performance, Supportive leadership where leader shows concern and cares about subordinates, Participative leadership in which leader listens to subordinates and considers their suggestions and finally Achievement-Oriented leadership where leader's goals are high and expectations for subordinate's performances are also high.
Situational leadership theory
Situational leadership theory proposed by Kenneth Blanchard and Paul Hersey holds that the leadership style should be chosen according to various situations. This theory is based on the amount of emotional and social support of leaders and the amount of direction given the situation and the level of subordinate's maturity. Subordinate's maturity is defined as the ability and willingness of subordinates to accept responsibility for their own task-related behavior. Hersey and Blanchard present four leadership styles: Telling/directing- high task focus but low emphasis on relationship. Leaders here supervise employees closely and it is suitable for people who need motivation and direction to get into work. Selling/coaching- high focuses on both task and relationship. Leaders defines again roles and tasks but they consider subordinate's ideas. Suitable for people who lack of commitment. Participating/supporting style- low emphasis on task but high on relationship. Leaders share control with the followers but support is necessary to motivate and inspire them. Delegating has both low task and low relationship focus. Its is more suitable for people who are willing and able to work by themselves without lot of support and supervision. An effective leader though knows in which of these styles is in and is able to change according to situations.
Conclusion
As we see Trait and Behavior theories of leadership fail to identify which are the real and effective leaders. Traits and characteristics are not enough to identify leaders as the same traits and characteristics may be possessed by non-leaders too. Behaviours of leadership that could be trained and observed in order to built effective leaders are not enough either. Contingency theory appeared to give many answers to non replied queries of previous theories and succeeded in identifying a main factor that Trait and Behavior Theories failed: the situation. Leadership styles vary according to various situations. One leadership style may be ineffective where another one is gigantically successful. We are now able to see that leaders vary according to situations and their traits. Leaders are able to express themselves fully, says Warren Bennis. 'They also know what they want, why they want it, and how to communicate what they want to others, in order to gain their co-operation and support.' Lastly, 'they know how to achieve their goals' Bennis says. (Bennis 1998: 3). Leaders can find a way to make the difference, I say.
References
Bennis, W. (1998) On Becoming a Leader, London: Arrow
Doyle, M.E. and Smith, M.K. (2001) 'Classical Leadership', the encyclopedia of
informal education [Online]
Available: http://www.infed.org/leadership/traditional_leadersip.htm[2001]
Fiedler, F.E. (1997) 'Situational control and a dynamic theory of leadership' in
K.Grid (ed.) (1997) Leadership. Classical, contemporary and critical
approaches, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fiedler, F.E. and Garcia, J.E. (1987) New Approaches to effective leadership,
New York: John Wiley
Freiberg, K. and Freiberg, J. (1996) NUTS! Southwest Airlines. Crazy Recipe for
Business and Personal Success, Boud Press.
Sadler, P. (1997) Leadership, London: Kogan Page.
Stodgill, R.M. (1974) Handbook of Leadership: A survey of the literature, New
York: Free Press.
Wright, P. (1996) Managerial Leadership, London: Routledge.