Question

Briefly compare the following early contingency theories:

a. Fiedler’s LPC contingency model

b. Fiedler’s cognitive resource theory

c. Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory

Answer 1

a. Fiedler’s LPC contingency model

Premises

The most common situational theory was developed by Fred Fiedler. Fiedler believed that an individual’s leadership style is the result of their experiences throughout the lifespan, therefore it is extremely difficult to change (Aamodt, 2015). Fiedler would argue that rather than teaching people a particular leadership style, instead one should concentrate on helping people understand their particular leadership style and learn how to match that style to the particular situation (Aamodt, 2015). In order to help one understand their specific leadership style, Fiedler developed the Least-Preferred Coworker Scale (Aamodt, 2015). According to Fiedler, because leadership behavior is fixed effectiveness could only be improved by restructuring tasks or changing the amount of power the leader had over organizational factors such as salary, disciplinary action, and promotions (Armandi, 2003). Fiedler’s model does have some weaknesses. For example, some leaders may be more effective in certain situations than others (Kest, 2006). The LPC scale can be questioned because the assessment is performed by one individual on another (Kest, 2006).

To Fiedler, stress is a key determinant of leader effectiveness (Fiedler and Garcia 1987; Fiedler et al. 1994), and a distinction is made between stress related to the leader’s superior, and stress related to subordinates or the situation itself. In stressful situations, leaders dwell on the stressful relations with others and cannot focus their intellectual abilities on the job. Thus, intelligence is more effective and used more often in stress-free situations. Fiedler concludes that experience impairs performance in low-stress conditions but contributes to performance under high-stress conditions. As with other situational factors, for stressful situations Fiedler recommends altering or engineering the leadership situation to capitalize on the leader’s strengths.

Fiedler’s situational contingency theory holds that group effectiveness depends on an appropriate match between a leader’s style (essentially a trait measure) and the demands of the situation. Fiedler considers situational control the extent to which a leader can determine what their group is going to do to be the primary contingency factor in determining the effectiveness of leader behavior.

Fiedler’s contingency model is a dynamic model where the personal characteristics and motivation of the leader are said to interact with the current situation that the group faces. Thus, the contingency model marks a shift away from the tendency to attribute leadership effectiveness to personality alone (Forsyth, 2006).

Least preferred co-worker (LPC)

The leadership style of the leader, thus, fixed and measured by what he calls the least preferred co-worker (LPC) scale, an instrument for measuring an individual’s leadership orientation. The LPC scale asks a leader to think of all the people with whom they have ever worked and then describe the person with whom they have worked least well, using a series of bipolar scales of 1 to 8, such as the following:

Unfriendly	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	Friendly
Uncooperative	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	Cooperative
Hostile	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	Supportive
....	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	....
Guarded	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	Open

A high LPC score suggests that the leader has a "human relations orientation", while a low LPC score indicates a "task orientation". Fiedler assumes that everybody's least preferred coworker in fact is on average about equally unpleasant. But people who are indeed relationship motivated, tend to describe their least preferred coworkers in a more positive manner, e.g., more pleasant and more efficient. Therefore, they receive higher LPC scores. People who are task motivated, on the other hand, tend to rate their least preferred coworkers in a more negative manner. Therefore, they receive lower LPC scores. So, the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale is actually not about the least preferred worker at all, instead, it is about the person who takes the test; it is about that person's motivation type. This is so, because, individuals who rate their least preferred coworker in relatively favorable light on these scales derive satisfaction out of interpersonal relationship, and those who rate the coworker in a relatively unfavorable light get satisfaction out of successful task performance. This method reveals an individual's emotional reaction to people they cannot work with. Critics point out that this is not always an accurate measurement of leadership effectiveness.

Situational favourableness

According to Fiedler, the ability to control the group situation (the second component of the contingency model) is crucial for a leader. This is because only leaders with situational control can be confident that their orders and suggestions will be carried out by their followers. Leaders who are unable to assume control over the group situation cannot be sure that the members they are leading will execute their commands. Because situational control is critical to leadership efficacy, Fiedler broke this factor down into three major components: leader-member relations, task structure, and position power (Forsyth, 2006). Moreover, there is no ideal leader. Both low-LPC (task-oriented) and high-LPC (relationship-oriented) leaders can be effective if their leadership orientation fits the situation. The contingency theory allows for predicting the characteristics of the appropriate situations for effectiveness. Three situational components determine the favourableness of situational control:

1. Leader-Member Relations, referring to the degree of mutual trust, respect and confidence between the leader and the subordinates. When leader-member relations in the group are poor, the leader has to shift focus away from the group task in order to regulate behavior and conflict within the group (Forsyth, 2006).
2. Task Structure, referring to the extent to which group tasks are clear and structured. When task structure is low (unstructured), group tasks are ambiguous, with no clear solution or correct approach to complete the goal. In contrast, when task structure is high (structured), the group goal is clear, unambiguous and straightforward: members have a clear idea about the how to approach and reach the goal (Forsyth, 2006).
3. Leader Position Power, referring to the power inherent in the leader's position itself.

When there is a good leader-member relation, a highly structured task, and high leader position power, the situation is considered a "favorable situation." Fiedler found that low-LPC leaders are more effective in extremely favourable or unfavourable situations, whereas high-LPC leaders perform best in situations with intermediate favourability. Leaders in high positions of power have the ability to distribute resources among their members, meaning they can reward and punish their followers. Leaders in low position power cannot control resources to the same extent as leaders in high power, and so lack the same degree of situational control. For example, the CEO of a business has high position power, because she is able to increase and reduce the salary that her employees receive. On the other hand, an office worker in this same business has low position power, because although they may be the leader on a new business deal, they cannot control the situation by rewarding or disciplining their colleagues with salary changes (Forsyth, 2006).

Leader-situation match and mismatch

Since personality is relatively stable though it can be changed, the contingency model suggests that improving effectiveness requires changing the situation to fit the leader. This is called "job engineering" or "job restructuring". The organization or the leader may increase or decrease task structure and position power, also training and group development may improve leader-member relations. In his 1976 book Improving Leadership Effectiveness: The Leader Match Concept, Fiedler (with Martin Chemers and Linda Mahar) offers a self paced leadership training programme designed to help leaders alter the favourableness of the situation, or situational control.

Examples

• Task-oriented leadership would be advisable in natural disaster, like a flood or fire. In an uncertain situation the leader-member relations are usually poor, the task is unstructured, and the position power is weak. The one who emerges as a leader to direct the group's activity usually does not know subordinates personally. The task-oriented leader who gets things accomplished proves to be the most successful. If the leader is considerate (relationship-oriented), they may waste so much time in the disaster, that things get out of control and lives are lost.
• Blue-collar workers generally want to know exactly what they are supposed to do. Therefore, their work environment is usually highly structured. The leader's position power is strong if management backs their decision. Finally, even though the leader may not be relationship-oriented, leader-member relations may be extremely strong if they can gain promotions and salary increases for subordinates. Under these situations the task-oriented style of leadership is preferred over the (considerate) relationship-oriented style.
• The considerate (relationship-oriented) style of leadership can be appropriate in an environment where the situation is moderately favorable or certain. For example, when (1) leader-member relations are good, (2) the task is structured, and (3) position power is either strong or weak. Situations like this exist with research scientists, who do not like superiors to structure the task for them. They prefer to follow their own creative leads in order to solve problems. In a situation like this a considerate style of leadership is preferred over the task-oriented.

Opposing views

Researchers often find that Fiedler's contingency theory falls short on flexibility. They also noticed that LPC scores can fail to reflect the personality traits they are supposed to reflect.

Fiedler’s contingency theory has drawn criticism because it implies that the only alternative for an unalterable mismatch of leader orientation and an unfavorable situation is changing the leader. The model’s validity has also been disputed, despite many supportive tests (Bass 1990). The contingency model does not take into account the percentage of "intermediate favourability" situations vs. "extremely favourable or unfavourable situations", hence, does not give a complete picture of the comparison between low-LPC leaders and high-LPC leaders.

Other criticisms concern the methodology of measuring leadership style through the LPC inventory and the nature of the supporting evidence (Ashour 1973; Schriesheim and Kerr 1977a, 1977b; Vecchio 1977, 1983). Fiedler and his associates have provided decades of research to support and refine the contingency theory.

Cognitive Resource Theory (CRT) modifies Fiedler’s basic contingency model by adding traits of the leader (Fiedler and Garcia 1987). CRT tries to identify the conditions under which leaders and group members will use their intellectual resources, skills and knowledge effectively. While it has been generally assumed that more intelligent and more experienced leaders will perform better than those with less intelligence and experience, this assumption is not supported by Fiedler’s research.

b. Fiedler’s Cognitive resource theory

The cognitive resource theory is a leadership theory of industrial and organizational psychology developed by Fred Fiedler and Joe Garcia in 1987 as a reconceptualization of the Fiedler contingency model. The theory focuses on the influence of the leader's intelligence and experience on his or her reaction to stress.

The essence of the theory is that stress is the enemy of rationality, damaging leaders' ability to think logically and analytically. However, the leader's experience and intelligence can lessen the influence of stress on his (or her) actions: intelligence is the main factor in low-stress situations, while experience counts for more during high-stress moments.

Background: The Contingency Model

Research into leadership performance and effectiveness of training programmes found no effect of years of experience on performance. To understand the effect of different leaders on performance in an organization, Fielder developed the Contingency Model. The model highlights the importance of leadership style and the degree to which this is matched to the situation. Contrast between task-orientated leaders and relationship-orientated leaders judged by the Least Preferred Coworker Scale (LPC). Either leadership style can be effective depending on the situation so no ideal leader is theorized but performance can be improved by altering the situation to meet the style of leadership. The second factor of the theory is how well the leader can control the group and ensure their instructions are carried out. However this theory was criticized for its lack of flexibility and over the accuracy of the LPC scale. Fiedler then went on to develop the Cognitive Resource Theory (CRT) which takes into account the personality of the leader, degree of situational stress and group-leader relations.

Cognitive Resource Theory

The cognitive resources of a leader refers to their experience, intelligence, competence and task-relevant knowledge.

Blades undertook studies in army mess halls, investigating the effect of group member and leader intelligence on overall organisational performance. The effect of intelligence on performance was influenced by how directive the leader was and both the leader's and members' motivation. He concluded that a leader's knowledge can only contribute to performance if it is efficiently communicated, hence requiring a directive leader and also a compliant group that is willing to undertake the commands of the leader.^[1] A further study on military cadets measuring levels of interpersonal stress and intelligence showed intelligence to be impaired under conditions of stress.^[2]

Predictions

1. A leader's cognitive ability contributes to the performance of the team only when the leader's approach is directive. When leaders are better at planning and decision-making, in order for their plans and decisions to be implemented, they need to tell people what to do, rather than hope they agree with them. When they are not better than people on the team, then a non-directive approach is more appropriate, for example where they facilitate an open discussion where the ideas of team can be aired and the best approach identified and implemented.
2. Stress affects the relationship between intelligence and decision quality. When there is low stress, then intelligence is fully functional and makes an optimal contribution. However, during high stress, a natural intelligence not only makes no difference, but it may also have a negative effect.One reason for this may be that an intelligent person seeks rational solutions, which may not be available (and may be one of the causes of stress). In such situations, a leader who is inexperienced in 'gut feel' decisions is forced to rely on this unfamiliar approach. Another possibility is that the leader retreats within him/herself, to think hard about the problem, leaving the group to their own devices. In situations of stress cognitive abilities are not task-orientated but focus on task irrelevant features caused by stress of the situation or of their superior.
3. Leader's abilities contribute to group performance only under conditions where the group favors the leader and is supportive of the leader and their goals. In situations where the group members are supportive, the leader's commands can therefore be implemented
4. Leader's intelligence correlates with performance to the degree that the task is intellectually demanding. Intellectual abilities can only be utilized efficiently in difficult, cognitively demanding tasks.

Therefore, the leader's abilities and intelligence only aid organisational success when they are directive, in a stress free situation, the organizations' members are supportive and the task requires high intellect.

The Role of Experience

In high stress conditions, experience is a more influencing factor on performance than intelligence as experience leads to perceiving the situation as more structured and less complex. A high level of intellect leads to Cognitive complexity thereby perception of greater task complexity and the leader views many alternative solutions, resulting in greater stress. The extent to which a leader has situational control judged by their perception of task structure and their position of power defines how certain they think the task will be accomplished. Situational Control is a key concept in both the Contingency Model and in Cognitive Resource Theory. The Contingency Model predicts that task-motivated leaders (low LPC score) perform most efficiently in situations of high control whereas relationship orientated leaders (high LPC score) perform best in moderately or low structured tasks.

Further Applications

Originating from studies into military leadership style, Cognitive Resource Theory can also be applied to other contexts such as the relationship between stress and ability in sport. The theory proposes the style of leadership required in certain situations, depending on the degree of stress, situational control and task structure. Training should focus on stress management so that a leader's intellect can be most effectively utilised and also to train leaders to take a directive approach when their knowledge will benefit the group but a less directive approach when group member abilities will contribute to performance.

c. Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory

Pro's

• The simplicity of the theory makes it easy to apply.
• The theory has simple scales that a leader can use to give a "thumb in the wind" assessment of what leadership style to use.
• Maturity and competence of the group are often overlooked factors in good leadership and it helps to focus on these.

Con's

• The theory may not be applicable to managers as administrators or those with limited power but in structurally in a leadership position.
• There are situations in which the theory may be less applicable such as those involving time constraints and task complexity.
• Testing of the theory doesn't seem to bear out the predictions.

Overview

Situational Leadership Theory is really the short form for "Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory" and draws major views from contingency thinking. As the name implies, leadership depends upon each individual situation, and no single leadership style can be considered the best. For Hershey and Blanchard, tasks are different and each type of task requires a different leadership style. A good leader will be able to adapt her or his leadership to the goals or objectives to be accomplished. Goal setting, capacity to assume responsibility, education, and experience are main factors that make a leader successful. Not only is the leadership style important for a successful leader-led situation but the ability or maturity of those being led is a critical factor, as well. Leadership techniques fall out of the leader pairing her or his leadership style to the maturity level of the group.

Discussion

The Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory has two pillars: leadership style and the maturity level of those being led. To Hersey and Blanchard, there leadership styles stem from four basic behaviors, designated with a letter-number combination:

• S-1 Telling
• S-2 Selling
• S-3 Participating
• S-4 Delegating.

The leadership style, itself, manifests itself as behavior related to the task and behavior as to relationship with the group. "Telling" behavior simply is a unidirectional flow of information from the leader to the group. Do this task in this manner because of [whatever] at this location, and get it finished by [whenever]. Transactional leadership techniques operate here. In the "selling" behavior, the leader attempts to convince the group of that the leader should lead by providing social and emotional support to the individual being convinced. There is two-way communication, but it is clear that the leader is leading. With "participating" behavior, the leader shares decision making with the group, making the system more democratic. There is less of an emphasis on accomplishing an objective than building human relations. The fourth type of behavior in leadership style, "delegating" is reflected by parceling out tasks to group members. The leader still is in charge but there is more of an emphasis on monitoring the ones delegated with the tasks.

Four maturity levels of the group are posited by Hersey and Blanchard with letter designations:

• M-1: basic incompetence or unwillingness in doing the task
• M-2: inability to do the task but willing to do so
• M-3: competent to do the task but do not think they can
• M-4: the group is ready, willing, and able to do the task.

Each type of task may involve a different maturity level, so a person with an overall maturity level of M-3 might be only an M-1 with respect to specific work.

According to Hersey, ability level and willingness to do work can be cultivated by a good leader by raising the level of expectations. Blanchard overlays four permutations of competency-commitment, again, with a letter designation:

• D1 - Low competence and low commitment
• D2 - Low competence and high commitment
• D3 - High competence and low/variable commitment
• D4 - High competence and high commitment

Critique

Can one apply the Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory to both leaders and managers? If managers are seen merely as those executing a leader's directives and with little authority (an administrator), perhaps not. On the other hand, the theory may be relevant. Each case needs to be evaluated on its own merits and people need to be aware of the limitations.

If the theory is only about getting those following to do work based on competence and willingness, then, there may be some omissions, such as situations in which neither may be relevant. Wartime, emergency situations, survival-type scenarios may need a leader, and that leader may have to do more than simply look at the willingness and competence. S/he may have to make things happen, regardless of these two factors.

If the group already has an agenda, what the leader says or does may be less relevant. This is true when the leader may not have the support of the group or have deficiencies the group has identified, making the leader less powerful to effect change.

There may not be a way of assessing accurately competence or maturity of a group, especially is there is a time limitation. As an indication of this, Goodson et al state, "Unfortunately, no absolute standard of readiness or maturity exists. ... Therefore, standardization is needed in order to clarify which subordinate populations should be considered 'ready' and which should not." . There always, too, is the misjudgment of the leader, especially when there is urgency or task complexity involved. Another issue is context and dynamism. Willingness to do a task may change, and an initial judgment may be erroneous later. The scales are subjective, and context free.