Situational Leadership Theory Analysis

Leadership has been described as a “complex process having multiple dimensions” (Northouse, 2013). Over the past 60 years, scholars and practitioners have introduced a vast amount of leadership models and theories to explain this complex field and examine its many perspectives. Numerous leadership theories and models have attempted to define what makes a leader effective. From the early 1900s, the trait paradigm dominated leadership literature, focusing on inherited traits of leaders and suggesting that “leaders are born, not made”. However, during the 1950s, the trait approach lost enthusiasm as focus shifted to the behavior of leaders. Similar to the trait theory, the behavioral paradigm was based on general effective leadership behaviors

(House & Aditya, 1997). While both theories are prominent, both failed to consider a key factor when determining the effectiveness of leaders: the situation.

A leader's situation or environment plays a critical role in his or her success or failure, especially in today's ever-changing organizations and marketplace. The contingency and situational leadership perspectives, such as Fiedler's Contingency Theory of Leadership and Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Leadership Theory, proposed that a leader's effectiveness is influenced by situational factors as well, rather than simply traits and behaviors. Both leadership theories introduced a pragmatic approach to leadership by recognizing leadership as an interactive process involving the leader, the follower, and other internal and external organizational factors. Fiedler and Hersey and Blanchard's theories broke ground in the leadership field by departing from the “one style fits all” leadership

concept.
Fielder's Contingency Theory is largely based on matching the leader's style to the right situation. Although Fielder's Contingency Theory differs from the trait and behavior paradigm, the theory implies that the interaction of the leader's traits and behavior with the situational context determines the leader's effectiveness. In other words, the leader's effectiveness is “contingent” on the leader's style fitting the situation (Northouse, 2013). For example, if a job is highly regulated with established solution paths and a leader’s style is innovative and autonomous than clearly the leader will not be effective. In using Fielder’s contingency model, the first step is to identify the leader’s leadership style or behavior. Fiedler’s theory is based on a leader’s style being stable or fixed; therefore, his contingency model is based on two leadership styles: task-oriented and relationship-oriented. The leader’s style is identified by using the least preferred co-worker (LPC) scale, which is a questionnaire used to measure the leader’s personality or behavior. A 64 or below LPC score indicates that a leader is task-oriented, while a 73 or above score indicates that a leader is relationship-oriented (Fielder & Chemers, 1984). For example, Mary Kay Ash, founder of Mary Kay, is viewed as a leader with a high LPC score. Ash valued and cultivated interpersonal relationships with her employees and was more concerned with employees’ well-being than meeting quotas. On the other hand, Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric, is viewed as a leader with a low LPC score. Welch focused on productivity and gained satisfaction from accomplishing tasks not building relationships. Once the leadership style has been determined, the next step is to determine the situational favorableness, favorable or less, based on the following situational variables: (1) leader-follower relationship- classified as good or poor based on the degree of respect and acceptance of the leader; (2) task structure- classified as high structure or low structure based on the degree of clear and structured job details; and (3) position power- classified as strong or weak based on the degree of legitimate, reward, and coercive power possessed by the leader. For example, for a leader-follower relationship would be classified as good if a leader has a good interpersonal relationship with employees and the followers view the leader as dependable. However, a leader-follower relationship would be classified as poor if the followers distrusted the leader and there was no little to no cooperation by the followers. Additionally, a task which involves clear and detailed step by step instructions for operating equipment and machinery would be classified as highly-structured. The situational variables classification produces three categories of situational favorableness: very favorable, moderately favorable, and very unfavorable. Fielder's contingency theory premise is very favorable or very unfavorable situations are suited for a task-oriented leadership style while a relationship-oriented leadership style is suited for moderately favorable situations. For example, according to Fielder's theory, a task-oriented leader would be effective in a state of emergency-like situation in which there is chaos and no clear solution path, the leader has relatively no legitimate authority, and conflict exist between the leader and follower. In this case, a task-oriented leader would be needed to push productivity in order to accomplish the objectives required to restore order (Martin, 2005). Interestingly, Fielder's model also implies that a task-oriented leader would be effective in a very favorable situation as well. For example, a situation in which followers are loyal to the leader, the tasks are well-defined, and the leader has a great amount of legitimate, reward, and coercive power, a task-oriented leader would be effective. Martin (2005) proposed this is because although the situation is favorable, a task-oriented leader is still needed in order to ensure tasks are achieved and complacency does not set in. On the contrary, a relationship-oriented leadership style is suited for a moderately favorable situation. For instance, a situation in which there is no trust between the leader and follower, but clear job details and a leader has the power to grant promotions, a relationship-oriented leadership style would be effective.
Several researchers have found Fielder's contingency theory to be valid; however, some researchers have determined the theory is an unreliable approach due to inconsistent test results and many unanswered questions (Kelley, 1992).

However, Fielder's theory provides useful implications for understanding the complex leadership process. First, Fielder's theory demonstrates that it is unrealistic for an organization to require a leader to be effective in every situation. Fielder argues that leaders should be placed in situations which match their style in order to optimize success. He proposed that organizations “build an organizational environment in which the leader can perform well” (Koontz, 2009). Fielder stressed that placing leaders in “mismatched” situations places a tremendous amount of pressure on a leaders which ultimately results in decreased organizational performance (Northouse, 2013). Second, Fielder's theory provides useful information to organization to help them in determining which leaders are better suited for certain situations. Using the Fielder's theory information, an organization can determine the likelihood of success before placing a leader in an a certain

situation.