demotivated, as they did not want to change their ways. By January 2000, profits were continuing to fall steeply, and Mr Salsbury’s changes were not having the desired effects. As a consequence, the company was losing its brand quality.
To say that there is one best style of leadership suggests that there must also be a particular kind of leader who will be most successful. Attempts at identifying a ‘successful’ leader have been difficult, and often contradictory. It is true to say that there are certain characteristics which would be a vital catalyst in creating a ‘good’ leader, such as intelligence and confidence, however research shows that ‘there is little in common between specific personality traits of different leaders.’
The functional approach of leadership concentrates on how a leader’s behaviour affects and is affected by a group of followers. This can be linked to Hersey and Blanchard’s ‘Maturity of Followers’ theory, as discussed later. Whitehead claims that ‘you don’t have to be a boss to be a leader’. As long as you possess the qualities that produce effective leadership, these skills will affect the group of followers positively. Whether this theory should be used within a specific organisation depends upon the particular circumstance in question.
It is the situational approach of leadership that is most important when discussing the statement in question. It focuses on the importance of the situation with regards to which leadership approach must be used. This is the main factor which will influence the style of leadership to be most successful. Despite this, some leaders who possess all the desired skills to become an effective leader, may not perform.
Wikipedia’s definition of a contingency theory states that ‘leadership effectiveness depends on both the leader's personality and the situation’. The theories suggest that there is no single style of leadership appropriate to all situations. There are four main contingency theories. According to Glueck and Bedeian, (1983) ‘the first and perhaps most popular, situational theory to be advanced was the ‘Contingency Theory of Leadership Effectiveness' developed by Fred E. Fiedler’. The theory suggests that leadership is dependent upon the favourability of the situation. He develops an index called the least preferred co-worker scale (LPC), measuring ratings about people who leaders would work with least well. Using this theory in an organisation, performance will be contingent upon the appropriate matching of leadership style and the favourableness of the circumstance for the leader. The LPC scores once gathered would be associated with the effectiveness of the group’s performance.
However, Fiedler’s work has been under strong criticism- specifically the usage of the LPC scale. Fiedler has himself ‘revised or at least elaborated on the original assumptions about behaviour that could be based on LPC scores.’ Fiedler (1972). This revision of his theory, in conjunction with the doubts expressed by critics portrayed a lack of belief of the theory.
Another contingency theory is the Vroom and Yetton theory. This is based upon two aspects of a leader’s decision- quality and acceptance. It analyses the effects a leader’s decisions has upon a group’s performance, and of the motivation and commitment of staff following the decision. The theorists suggest seven decision rules which must be answered by staff to conclude which leadership style is desired for a specific situation. Similarly to Fiedler, this theory was also later updated by Vroom and Jago, suggesting a total of twelve variables.
The third theory is the Path- Goal theory. This is a ‘different type of contingency approach, seeking to link leadership to the motivation of subordinates’ Warr (1971). The theory is derived from the expectancy theory of motivation, and suggests that the performance of workers is dependent upon whether the managers satisfy their expectations. The theory exemplifies four types of leadership behaviour, and suggests that all these styles of leadership can be used by one person, depending on the situation. Marks and Spencer may have been adopting a path-goal category, creating job security for their workers. The firm’s recruitment policies were focused internally, promoting internal vacancies and scope for promotion. This was a key success in the past for Marks and Spencer. The organisation had the intention of satisfying the worker and meeting their expectations. In turn, this would theoretically lead to improved production and performance. However, in Marks and Spencer’s case, this theory was not beneficial, as the worker’s became unable to change and adapt from the ‘Marks and Spencer procedures’. This was also true of Marks and Spencer’s leaders. Whilst the firm had been intending on satisfying the staff, when change was needed, they were unable to appreciate the need for a new system, despite the deteriorating performance of the company.
The final contingency theory is the ‘maturity of followers’ theory. The variable used to analyse the style of leadership with this theory is the willingness of the followers, and their readiness to adhere to the leader. Therefore this theory is not based on personal characteristics like Fiedler’s theory, but monitors how ready the individual is to perform a task. The readiness of the worker is divided into four levels, each level allocated to a specific style of leadership, a combination of task and leadership behaviour. Thus, the style of the leadership corresponds with the willingness of the employees. The ‘maturity of followers’ theory portrays the importance of the commitment and ability of the workers, and demonstrates how the manager can aid the workers by adjusting between the four leadership styles.
Traditionally, human relations approaches to management are considered most appropriate when aiming for increased production and job satisfaction. This is a democratic approach, and although this may be desired, it is not always the best style of leadership. Autocratic styles can also benefit certain situations. Some employees will respond better to a task orientated,
stricter, autocratic style of leadership. It is heavily dependent on the situation in question.
It is possible that different types of leadership will be most desired at different stages of a business also. Clarke and Pratt identify four stages of leadership. The theorists suggest that most are suited to a particular stage of the development of the business, and that it is not always possible for managers to effectively change between each role. As Boot et al agrees, ‘much greater emphasis is now being placed on the relationship between effectiveness and various aspects of the situation.’ Rodrigues (1988) compliments the idea that there is a specific leader who is appropriate for certain stages of the business, and says that at each of these stages ‘a leader with different traits, abilities, and behaviour is most effective.’ He believes that there are three main types of leaders, who are right for each stage. The innovator is the first, who craves competition and wants to search for new ideas. This type of leader will be most effective at an early, or even at a problem solving stage- when a business is in need of a change. This is the type of leader that Marks and Spencer was searching for when it hired Peter Salsbury. However, as discussed earlier, they later found out that perhaps he was not the best leader to be managing the innovating stage of the business. The implementor is the second type of leader, with a need for being autocratic and influencing situations. This type of leader adopts the systematic approach as opposed to the contingency approach. The implementor continues on from the work of the innovator. Finally the pacifier is needed for the social interaction and the ability to pacify individuals. The pacifier stage of the business is at its most effective when the implementor has achieved a stable state for the business.
Warr (1971) claims that there are ‘dangers of advocating one particular style’ of leadership in any given situation. It is perhaps obvious that different styles of leadership will be more appropriate for different circumstances, or even different stages of a business. There are many alternative forms of leadership, and the chosen style for businesses is a key aspect of a firm’s performance. Hollander (1974) states that ‘almost everything in organisational life is either a function of leadership, or is, at least associated with it’.
The situational approach of a contingency style of leadership can be seen as a preferable, human relations based method of leadership, as this type of leadership is most likely to increase job satisfaction, in turn improving work performance. Adopting a contingency theory allows managers to adjust to a particular theory- best desired for the specific situation. However, contingency theories can lead to a lack of trust from employees, and leaders may interpret this style as inconsistent. A leader should be able to have a ‘powerful impact on group performance’ Vecchio (2000). Leadership is perhaps as it’s most important when a firm is at a time of change and uncertainty. This was the case for Marks and Spencer, who needed a leader to change the organisation, and to restructure the original path- goal theory of leadership. After Peter Salsbury had joined the firm it was still clear, even with the introduction of his transformational leadership approach that there was still
need for a change in the leadership strategies that were being used. Different employees respond to different styles of leadership, so it is impossible to say that there is one best style of leadership which can be used in conjunction with all subordinates. Whether it be a type of leader who is most appropriate
for a particular stage of an organisation’s development, or a style of leadership used for a group of followers- different types of situations should, theoretically be approached in different manners to ensure success.
References
-
Bedeian, A.G, Gleuk, W.F (1983), Management, Third Edition, Chicago, Dreyden Press.
-
Boot, R.L, Cowling, A.G, Stanworth, M.J.K (1977), Behavioural Sciences for Managers, London, Edward Arnold.
-
Mac Millan and Tampoe (2002), Oxford University Press, Hard times for Marks and Spencer [accessed Jan 2006],
-
Hollander, E.P (1974) Processes of leadership emergence- Journal of contemporary business, Autumn 1974.
-
Mellahi, K et al (2002), An exploratory study into failure in successful organisations- The Case of Marks and Spencer, 13, pp 15-29
-
Mullins, L.J, (2005), Management and Organisational Behaviour, Seventh Edition, Harlow, Pitman imprint.
-
Rodrigues, C.A (1988), Identifying the Right Leader for the Right Situation, pp 43-6.
-
Vecchio, R.P (2000), Organisational Behaviour- Core Concepts, Fourth edition, Dryden Press.
-
Warr, P (1971), Psychology at Work, London, Pengiun.
-
Wikipedia, (2005), Contingency Theories, [accessed Jan 2006],
