Fiedler's contingency model identifies which leadership styles

Leadership Theories

Resources: The Art and Science of Leadership, Ch. 3 and Leadership Theories Matrix

As a leader, you often need to display or clarify a concept. A matrix is a grid that contains information and offers a visual model of ideas. For this assignment, you will create a matrix that explains leadership theories.

Research the following five leadership theories and include these in your matrix (use the matrix template provided):

Trait theories of leadership
Behavioral theories of leadership
Contingency models of leadership
Skills approaches to leadership
Situational methods of leadership
Develop the definition and characteristics of various leadership theories and approaches to leadership (trait leadership, behavioral leadership, contingency leadership, skills leadership and situational leadership).

Provide one or more examples to support the definition or characteristics of each form of leadership.

Write out your explanations in each section using about 150 to 200 words for each section. First person writing may be used for this assignment.

Format your Leadership Theory Matrix with the template and consistent with APA guidelines.

Spell check and proofread the matrix carefully.

After studying this chapter, you will be able to:

1. Identify the three major eras in the study of leadership and their contributions to modern leadership

2. Present and be able to evaluate the contributions of the early theories of leadership including the following:

· Fiedler’s Contingency Model

· The Normative Decision Model

· Path–Goal theory

· Substitutes for leadership

· Leader–Member Exchange

The Leadership Question

Do you think some people are born leaders and can rise to the top no matter what the situation? What key characteristics do they possess?

The roots of the modern study of leadership can be traced to the Western Industrial Revolution that took place at the end of the nineteenth century. Although many throughout history focused on leadership, the modern approach to leadership brings scientific rigor to the search for answers. Social and political scientists and management scholars tried, sometimes more successfully than other times, to measure leadership through a variety of means. This chapter reviews the history of modern leadership theory and research and presents the early theories that are the foundations of modern leadership.

A History of Modern Leadership Theory: Three Eras

During the Industrial Revolution, the study of leadership, much like research in other aspects of organizations, became more rigorous. Instead of relying on intuition and a description of common practices, researchers used scientific methods to understand and predict leadership effectiveness by identifying and measuring leadership characteristics. The history of the modern scientific approach to leadership can be divided into three general eras or approaches: the trait era, the behavior era, and the contingency era. Each era has made distinct contributions to our understanding of leadership.

The Trait Era: Late 1800s to Mid-1940s

The belief that leaders are born rather than made dominated much of the late nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century. Thomas Carlyle’s book Heroes and Hero Worship ( 1907 ), William James’s writings ( 1880 ) about the great men of history, and Galton’s study ( 1869 ) of the role of heredity were part of an era that can be characterized by a strong belief that innate qualities shape human personality and behavior. Consequently, it was commonly believed that leaders, by virtue of their birth, were endowed with special qualities that allowed them to lead others. These special characteristics were presumed to push them toward leadership, regardless of the context. The historical context and social structures of the period further reinforced such beliefs by providing limited opportunities for common people to become social, political, and industrial leaders. The belief in the power of personality and other innate characteristics strongly influenced leadership researchers and sent them on a massive hunt for leadership traits made possible by the advent of personality and individual characteristics testing such as IQ in the early twentieth century.

The major assumption guiding hundreds of studies about leadership traits was that if certain traits distinguish between leaders and followers, then existing political, industrial, and religious leaders should possess them (for a thorough review of the literature, see Bass, 1990). Based on this assumption, researchers identified and observed existing leaders and followers and collected detailed demographic and personality information about them. More than 40 years of study provided little evidence to justify the assertion that leaders are born and that leadership can be explained through one or more traits. Some traits do matter. For instance, much evidence indicates that, on average, leaders are more sociable, more aggressive, and more lively than other group members. In addition, leaders generally are original and popular and have a sense of humor. Which of the traits are most relevant, however, seems to depend on the requirements of the situation. In other words, being social, aggressive, lively, original, and popular or having any other combination of traits does not guarantee that a person will become a leader in all situations, let alone an effective one.

Because of weak and inconsistent findings, the commonly shared belief among many researchers in the late 1930s and early 1940s was that although traits play a role in determining leadership ability and effectiveness, their role is minimal and that leadership should be viewed as a group phenomenon that cannot be studied outside a given situation (Ackerson, 1942; Bird, 1940; Jenkins, 1947; Newstetter, Feldstein, and Newcomb, 1938; Stogdill, 1948 ). More recent studies in the 1960s and 1970s reinforced these findings by showing that factors such as intelligence (Bray and Grant, 1966) or assertiveness ( Rychlak, 1963 ) are related to leadership effectiveness, but they alone cannot account for much of a leader’s effectiveness.

Recent views of the role of traits and other individual characteristics, such as skills, refined our understanding of the role of individual characteristics in leadership (for an example and review, see Mumford et al., 2000a , b ). Current interest in emotional intelligence has also yielded new research on the leader’s individual characteristics; these are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4 . The leader’s personality, by limiting the leader’s behavioral range or by making it more or less difficult to learn certain behaviors or undertake some actions, plays a key role in his or her effectiveness. However, it is by no means the only or even the dominant factor in effective leadership.

The Behavior Era: Mid-1940s to Early 1970s

Because the trait approach did not yield the expected results, and because the need to identify and train leaders became an urgent necessity during World War II, researchers turned to behaviors, rather than traits, as the source of leader effectiveness. The move to observable behaviors was triggered in part by the dominance of behaviorist theories during this period, particularly in the United States and Great Britain. Instead of identifying who would be an effective leader, the behavior approach emphasizes what an effective leader does. Focusing on behaviors provides several advantages over a trait approach:

· Behaviors can be observed readily.

· Behaviors can be consistently measured.

· Behaviors can be taught through a variety of methods.

These factors provided a clear benefit to the military and various other organizations with a practical interest in leadership. Instead of identifying leaders who had particular personality traits, they could focus on training people to perform effective leadership behaviors.

The early work of Lewin and his associates ( Lewin and Lippit, 1938 ; Lewin, Lippit, and White, 1939 ) concerning democratic, autocratic, and laissez-faire leadership laid the foundation for the behavior approach to leadership. Democratic leaders were defined as those who consult their followers and allow them to participate in decision making; autocratic leaders as those who make decisions alone; and laissez-faire leaders as those who provide no direction and do not become involved with their followers. Although the three types of leadership style were clearly defined, the research failed to establish which style would be most effective or which situational factors would lead to the use of one or another style. Furthermore, each of the styles had different effects on subordinates. For example, laissez-faire leadership, which involved providing information but little guidance or evaluation, led to frustrated and disorganized groups that, in turn, produced low-quality work. On the other hand, autocratic leadership caused followers to become submissive, whereas groups led by democratic leaders were relaxed and became cohesive.

Armed with the results of Lewin’s work and other studies, different groups of researchers set out to identify leader behaviors. Among the best-known behavioral approaches to leadership are the Ohio State Leadership Studies where a number of researchers developed a list of almost 2,000 leadership behaviors (Hemphill and Coons, 1957). After subsequent analyses ( Fleishman, 1953 ; Halpin and Winer, 1957 ), a condensed list yielded several central leadership behaviors. Among them, task- and relationship-related behaviors were established as primary leadership behaviors. The Ohio State studies led to the development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), which continues to be used today.

Although the Ohio State research, along with other studies (e.g., Bowers and Seashore, 1966), identified a number of leader behaviors, the links between those behaviors and leadership effectiveness could not be consistently established. After many years of research, it did not become clear which behaviors are most effective. Evidence, although somewhat weak, shows that effective leadership requires both consideration and structuring behaviors ( Fleishman and Harris, 1962 ; House and Filley, 1971 ). These findings, however, have failed to receive overwhelming support. Nevertheless, researchers agree that considerate, supportive, people-oriented behaviors are associated with follower satisfaction, loyalty, and trust, whereas structuring behaviors are more closely related to job performance (for a review, see Judge, Piccolo, and Ilies, 2004 ). However, the leadership dimensions of initiation of structure and consideration do not describe leader’s behavior adequately for cultures other than the United States where values might be less individualistic and people have different ideals of leadership ( Ayman and Chemers, 1983 ; Chemers, 1969 ; Misumi and Peterson, 1985 ).

Similar to the trait approach, the behavior approach to leadership, by concentrating only on behaviors and disregarding powerful situational elements, provides a relatively simplistic view of a highly complex process and, therefore, fails to provide a thorough understanding of the leadership phenomenon. Yet, the two general categories of task and relationship behaviors are well established as the primary leadership behaviors. Researchers and practitioners continue to discuss what leaders do in these general terms.

The Contingency Era: Early 1960s to Present

Even before the behavior approach’s lack of success in fully explaining and predicting leadership effectiveness became evident, a number of researchers were calling for a more comprehensive approach to understanding leadership ( Stogdill, 1948 ). Specifically, researchers recommended that situational factors, such as the task and type of work group, be taken into consideration. However, it was not until the 1960s that this recommendation was applied. In the 1960s, spearheaded by Fred Fiedler, whose Contingency Model of leadership is discussed later in this chapter, leadership research moved from simplistic models based solely on the leader to more complex models that take a contingency point of view. Other models such as the Path-Goal Theory and the Normative Decision Model, also presented in this chapter, soon followed. The primary assumption of the contingency view is that the personality, style, or behavior of effective leaders depends on the requirements of the situation in which the leaders find themselves. Additionally, this approach suggests the following:

· There is no one best way to lead.

· The situation and the various relevant contextual factors determine which style or behavior is most effective.

· People can learn to become good leaders.

· Leadership makes a difference in the effectiveness of groups and organizations.

· Personal and situational characteristics affect leadership effectiveness.

Although the contingency approach to leadership continues to be well accepted, the most recent approach to leadership focuses on the relationship between leaders and followers and on various aspects of charismatic and visionary leadership. Some researchers have labeled this approach the neo-charismatic school ( Antonakis, Cianciolo, and Sternberg, 2004 ). We will present this most recent view of leadership in detail in Chapter 6 .

Early Theories

An effective leader must know how to use available resources and build a relationship with follower to achieve goals ( Chemers, 1993 ). The early leadership theories of leadership addressed these two challenges in a variety of ways.

Fiedler’s Contingency Model

Fred Fiedler was the first researcher to propose a contingency view of leadership. His Contingency Model is the oldest and most highly researched contingency approach to leadership ( Fiedler, 1967 ). Fiedler’s basic premise is that leadership effectiveness is a function of the match between the leader’s style and the leadership situation. If the leader’s style matches the situation, the leader will be effective; otherwise, the leader will not be effective. Fiedler considers how the leader uses available resources to make the group effective.

Leader Style

To determine a leader’s style, Fiedler uses the least-preferred coworker (LPC) scale, a measure that determines whether the leader is primarily motivated by task accomplishment or by maintaining relationships. Fiedler’s research shows that people’s perceptions and descriptions of their least-preferred coworker provide insight into their basic goals and priorities toward either accomplishing a task or maintaining relationships (see Self-Assessment 3-1 ).

According to Fiedler, people with low LPC scores—those who give a low rating to their least-preferred coworker (describing the person as incompetent, cold, untrustworthy, and quarrelsome)—are task motivated. They draw their self-esteem mostly from accomplishing their task well (Chemers and Skrzypek, 1972; Fiedler, 1967 ; Fiedler and Chemers, 1984; Rice, 1978a , b ). When the task-motivated leaders or their groups fail, they tend to be harsh in judging their subordinates and are often highly punitive (Rice, 1978a , b ). When the task is going well, however, the task-motivated leader is comfortable with details and with monitoring routine events (Fiedler and Chemers, 1984; Table 3-1 ). People who have high LPC scores rate their least-preferred coworker relatively positively (describing that person as loyal, sincere, warm, and accepting); they are relationship motivated and draw their self-esteem from having good relationships with others. For them, the least-preferred coworker is often someone who has been disloyal and unsupportive rather than incompetent ( Rice, 1978a , b ). Relationship-motivated persons are easily bored with details ( Fiedler, 1978 ; Fiedler and Chemers, 1984) and focus on social interactions ( Rice, 1978a , b ; see Table 3-1 ). The task-motivated person’s focus on tasks and the relationship-motivated person’s concern for relationships are most obvious in times of crisis when the person is under pressure.

Table 3-1 Differences between Task-Motivated and Relationship-Motivated Individuals

Task Motivated (Low LPC)

Relationship Motivated (High LPC)

• Draws self-esteem from completion of task

• Draws self-esteem from interpersonal relationships

• Focuses on the task first

• Focuses on people first

• Can be harsh with failing employees

• Likes to please others

• Considers competence of coworkers to be key trait

• Considers loyalty of coworkers to be key trait

• Enjoys details

• Gets bored with details

A comparison between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama illustrates the differences between task- and relationship-oriented leaders. During the 2004 presidential campaign, H. Clinton very clearly stated that she considers the role of the president is not only to provide vision but also to control and direct the federal bureaucracy ( O’Toole, 2008 ). Obama, on the other hand, announced that he believes the president’s role is to provide vision and inspiration while delegating the responsibility of managing agencies ( O’Toole, 2008 ). Although President Obama’s leadership style also fits that charismatic leaders discussed in Chapter 6 , his broader focus and less attention to detail indicate a relationship-oriented style. Other leaders demonstrate both styles. Brady W. Dougan—53-year-old CEO of Credit Suisse Group, a major global bank, and its youngest CEO to date—is detailed oriented and task motivated ( Anderson, 2007 ). He gets to work around 5 AM. and is known to work out twice a day while he trains for marathons. He spent two months practicing to dance with a Broadway star to prepare for a charity event ( Anderson, 2007 ). Marissa Peterson, former executive vice president of worldwide operations of Sun Microsystems, is also task motivated. Her strength is in clearly outlining what role every one of her 2,000-strong staff plays. Her focus is on “developing the strategy for achieving my operation’s goals and then laying out that vision for my team” ( Overholt, 2002 : 125). Peterson sticks to a strict routine in managing her daily and weekly activities. Contrast these task-motivated leaders with Mort Meyerson, chairman and CEO of 2M Companies of Perot Systems, a computer firm based in Dallas, Texas, and Darlene Ryan, founder and CEO of PharmaFab, a pharmaceuticals manufacturer, also located in Texas. Meyerson believes, “To win in today’s brave new world of business, you must be more in-tune with your people and customers.… You must re-examine if you are creating an environment for your people to succeed and what that means. You must ask yourself: Am I really accessible? Am I really listening?” ( Meyerson, 2010 ). Darlene Ryan takes a similar approach. She runs her company like a family; she encourages dissent, delegates, and is a consensus builder. She is a great listener and is able to take her time when facing tough decisions ( Black, 2004 ).

Individuals who fall in the middle of the scale have been labeled socio-independent. They tend to be less concerned with other people’s opinions and may not actively seek leadership roles. Depending on how close their score is to the high or the low end of the scale, they might belong to either the task-motivated or relationship-motivated group (Fiedler and Chemers, 1984). Some research suggests that middle LPCs may be more effective than either high or low LPCs across all situations ( Kennedy, 1982 ). A potential middle LPC is Colin Powell. Even though he has been in many leadership positions, he has shied away from the presidency, and he has proven himself an outstanding follower to several presidents.

Despite some problems with the validity of the LPC scale, it has received strong support from researchers and practitioners and has even translated well to other cultures for use in leadership research and training ( Ayman and Chemers, 1983 , 1991 ). A key premise of the LPC concept is that because it is an indicator of primary motivation, leadership style is stable. Leaders, then, cannot simply change their style to match the situation.

Situational Control

Because effectiveness depends on a match between the person and the situation, Fiedler uses three factors to describe a leadership situation. In order of importance, they are (1) the relationship between the leader and the followers, (2) the amount of structure of the task, and (3) the position power of the leader. The three elements combine to define the amount of control the leader has over the situation (see Self-Assessment 3-2 ).

According to Fiedler, the most important element of any leadership situation is the quality of the relationship and the cohesion between the leader and the followers and among the followers ( Fiedler, 1978 ). Good leader–member relations (LMR) mean that the group is cohesive and supportive, providing leaders with a high degree of control to implement what they want. When the group is divided or has little respect or support for the leader, the leader’s control is low.

Task structure (TS) is the second element of a leadership situation. It refers to the degree of clarity of a task. A highly structured task has clear goals and procedures, few paths to the correct solution, and one or few correct solutions and can be evaluated easily ( Fiedler and Chemers, 1974 ). The degree of task structure affects the leader’s control. Whereas the leader has considerable control when doing a structured task, an unstructured task provides little sense of control. One factor that moderates task structure is the leader’s experience level (Fiedler and Chemers, 1984). On the one hand, if leaders have experience with a task, they will perceive the task as more structured. On the other hand, not having experience will make any task appear to be unstructured. The third and least influential element of the leadership situation is the leader’s position power (PP), which refers to the leader’s formal power and influence over subordinates to hire, fire, reward, or punish. The leader with a high amount of formal power feels more in control than one who has little power.

The combination of LMR, TS, and PP yields the amount of situational control (Sit Con) the leader has over the situation. At one end of the continuum, good leader–member relations, a highly structured task, and high position power provide the leader with high control over the situation where the leader’s influence is well accepted. In the middle of the continuum are situations in which either the leader or the followers do not get along or the task is unstructured. In such situations, the leader does not have full control over the situation, and the leadership environment is more difficult. At the other end of the situational control continuum, the leader–member relations are poor, the task is unstructured, and the leader has little power. Such a situation is chaotic and unlikely to continue for a long period of time in an organization. Clearly, this crisis environment does not provide the leader with a sense of control or any ease of leadership (see Self-Assessment 3-2 for Sit Con).

Predictions of the Contingency Model

At the core of the Contingency Model is the concept of match. If the leader’s style matches the situation, the group will be effective. Because Fiedler suggests that the leader’s style is constant, a leader’s effectiveness changes as the situation changes. The Contingency Model predicts that low-LPC, task-motivated leaders will be effective in high- and low-situational control, whereas high-LPC, relationship-motivated leaders will be effective in moderate-situational control. Figure 3-1 presents the predictions of the model.

In high-control situations (left side of the graph in Figure 3-1 ), task-motivated, low-LPC leaders feel at ease. The leader’s basic source of self-esteem—getting the task done—is not threatened, so the leader can relax, take care of details, and help the followers perform. The same high-control situation leads to a different effect on relationship-motivated, high-LPC leaders. They are likely to be bored and feel either that there is nothing to do or that nobody needs them. Because the group is cohesive and the task is clear, the leader is needed mainly to get the group the resources it needs, take care of details, and remove obstacles—all activities that are not appealing to high LPCs, who might, therefore, start being overly controlling and interfere with the group’s performance to demonstrate that they are needed ( Chemers, 1997 ; Fiedler and Garcia, 1987a ). See Table 3-2 for a summary of the leaders’ behaviors in each situation.

Moderate-situational control (the middle of graph in Figure 3-1 ) stems from lack of cohesiveness or lack of task structure. In either case, the situation is ambiguous or uncertain, and task completion is in jeopardy. The relationship-motivated, high-LPC leader’s skills at interpersonal relationships and participation are well suited for the situation. This type of leader seeks out followers’ participation and focuses on resolving task and relationship conflicts. The high-LPC leader uses the group as a resource to accomplish the task. The same elements that make moderate control attractive to relationship-motivated leaders make the situation threatening to the task-oriented, low-LPC leader. The lack of group support, the ambiguity of the task, or both make the low LPCs feel that the task might not be completed. The task-oriented leader becomes autocratic, ignores the task and relationship conflicts, and tries to simply complete the task to get a sense of accomplishment ( Fiedler, 1993 ). The inappropriate use of resources is likely to worsen the group’s lack of cohesion and prevent the exploration of creative solutions to an unstructured task. As a result, the task-motivated leader’s group performs poorly in moderate control.

Figure 3-1 Fiedler’s Contingency Model

Consider the example of several U.S. presidents. Former presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter were task-motivated leaders. Both were highly intelligent, focused on the task, and able to analyze large amounts of detail. Both needed to stay in control, held uncompromising views and approaches to issues, and could be harsh toward failing subordinates. They performed well in high control. Nixon experienced considerable success in foreign policy, where he was respected, the task was clear, and he held power tightly. As his legitimate power and popularity decreased—leading to moderate control—he became controlling, punitive, and ineffective. Carter’s effectiveness followed a similar pattern, although he never faced a high-control situation, a factor that might explain his overall poor effectiveness ratings as president. Almost immediately after being elected, he found himself in moderate control with poor relations with the U.S. Congress and an unstructured task exacerbated by his limited experience in foreign policy. His single-minded focus on human rights and his inability to compromise made him ineffective.

Table 3-2 Leader Style and Behaviors in Different Levels of Sit Con

Alternate View

High Sit Con

Moderate Sit Con

Low Sit Con

Task-motivated (low-LPC) leader

Confident; considerate and supportive; removes obstacles and stays out of the way

Tense; task focused; overbearing and overly controlling; insists on getting things done

Directive; task focused; serious; little concern for others

Relationship-motivated (high-LPC) leader

Bored; aloof and self-centered; somewhat autocratic; can interfere with group

Considerate; open to ideas and suggestions; concerned with resolving conflicts

Tense and nervous; hurt by group’s conflict; indecisive

Sources: Partially based on F. E. Fiedler. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness ( New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967 ); F. E. Fiedler and M. M. Chemers. Leadership and Effective Management ( Glenview, IL: Scott-Foresman, 1974 ); and F. E. Fiedler and M. M. Chemers. Improving Leadership Effectiveness: The Leader Match Concept, 2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley, 1984 ).

At the other end of the continuum are former presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, both high LPCs who focused on interpersonal relations, were bored with details, and demonstrated an apparently unending ability to compromise, a desire to please others, and the ability to perform and put on a show for their public. Both enjoyed working with people and were popular with crowds. Reagan was well liked but faced an unstructured task with moderate power. Clinton faced a novel and unstructured situation but continued to enjoy unprecedented support of the electorate. Both these relationship-motivated presidents were in moderate control where, by many accounts, they performed well.

As a situation becomes chaotic and reaches a crisis point with no group cohesion, no task structure, and no strong position power (the right side of the graph in Figure 3-1 ), the task-motivated, low-LPC leaders’ need to complete the task pushes them to take over and make autocratic decisions without much concern for followers. As a result, although performance is not high and followers might not be satisfied, groups with a low-LPC leader get some work done. For the relationship-motivated, high-LPC leader, the low Sit Con environment is a nightmare. The group’s lack of cohesion is further fueled by its inability to perform the task and makes efforts at reconciliation close to impossible. The high-LPC leader’s efforts to gain support from the group, therefore, fall on deaf ears. In an attempt to protect their self-esteem, high-LPC leaders withdraw, leaving their group to fend for itself and causing low performance. The data for the socio-independent leaders are less clear. Fiedler ( 1978 ) suggests that they generally perform better in high-control situations, although more research is needed to predict and explain their performance.

Evaluation and Application

Although a large number of studies have supported the Contingency Model over the past 40 years, several researchers have voiced strong criticisms regarding the meaning and validity of the LPC scale (Schriesheim and Kerr, 1974), the predictive value of the model ( Schriesheim, Tepper, and Tetrault, 1994 ; Vecchio, 1983 ), and the lack of research about the middle-LPC leaders ( Kennedy, 1982 ). Forty years of research have addressed the majority, although not all, of the concerns. As a result, the Contingency Model continues to emerge as one of the most reliable and predictive models of leadership, with a number of research studies and meta-analyses supporting the hypotheses of the model (see Ayman, Chemers, and Fiedler, 1995; Chemers, 1997 ; Peters, Hartke, and Pohlmann, 1985 ; Strube and Garcia, 1981 ).

Applying What You Learn

Putting the Contingency Model to Work

Fiedler’s Contingency Model suggests that instead of focusing on changing their style, leaders should learn to understand and manage the situations in which they lead. Chances are however that most of the leadership training programs you may attend will focus on changing the leaders’ style to adapt to different situations. Here’s how you can take advantage of those training programs while following the Contingency Model’s recommendations:

· Remember that learning will take place when you challenge yourself to undertake and master behaviors that do not come easily and therefore may be outside your comfort zone or primary motivation area.

· Regardless of your style, you can always learn new behaviors and expand your current range.

· All training, by design or default, will expose you to many new leadership situations. Take the opportunity to practice analyzing them to ascertain situational control.

· Do not expect miracles or even quick changes. Increasing your effectiveness as a leader is a long journey.

Importantly, a person’s LPC is not the only or the strongest determinant of a leader’s actions and beliefs. Although the focus has been on the description of stereotypical task-motivated and relationship-motivated leaders, a person’s behavior is determined by many other internal and external factors. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to carry the task or relationship orientation considerably beyond its use in the Contingency Model. It is a reliable predictor of leadership effectiveness within the model, but not necessarily beyond it.

The Contingency Model has several practical implications for managers:

· Leaders must understand their style and the situation to predict how effective they will be.

· Leaders should focus on changing the situation to match their style instead of trying to change how they act.

· A good relationship with followers is important to a leader’s ability to lead, and it can compensate for lack of power.

· Leaders can compensate for ambiguity of a task by getting training and experience.

Fiedler’s focus on changing the situation rather than the leader is unique among leadership theories. Interestingly, Marcus Buckingham, a well-known leadership consultant, has suggested that leaders should focus on developing their strengths rather than trying to compensate for their weaknesses ( Buckingham, 2005 ), advice that is consistent with Fiedler’s approach. Other leaders also recognize the importance of the context. Drew Gilpin Faust, president of Harvard University, says, “I think the most important leadership lessons I’ve learned have to do with understanding the context in which you are leading” ( Bryant, 2009m ). As opposed to Fiedler, the Normative Decision Model considered next, along with many other leadership models, assumes that the leader can change styles depending on the situation.

The Normative Decision Model

Should a leader make decisions alone or involve followers? What factors can help a leader determine how to make decisions? Consider the case of Junki Yoshida, the Japanese-born, 58-year-old martial artist and founder and owner of Yoshida Group enterprises. In 2005, he was voted one of the 100 most respected Japanese in the world by the Japanese edition of Newsweek magazine. His company includes Mr. Yoshida Original Gourmet sauces and marinades and comprises 18 highly diverse companies that include Jones Golf bags, OIA Global Logistics, and a graphic design company ( Yoshida Group, 2007 ). When he starts a new venture, Yoshida plays an active role in every aspect and stays close to every decision. Once the business takes off, however, he delegates to carefully selected specialists and lets them make many of the decisions. The way he makes decisions about his businesses changes as each business matures ( Brant, 2004 ). The Normative Decision Model (NDM; also referred to as the Vroom–Yetton model), developed by researchers Victor Vroom, Philip Yetton, and Arthur Jago, addresses such situations and prescribes when the leader needs to involve followers in decision making ( Vroom and Jago, 1988 ; Vroom and Yetton, 1973 ). It is called normative because it recommends that leaders adopt certain styles based on the prescriptions of the model. Like Fiedler, Vroom and his associates recommend matching the leader and the situational requirements. They, however, differ on several points. The Normative Decision Model is limited to decision making rather than general leadership, and it assumes that leaders can adopt different decision-making styles as needed.

The model relies on two well-established group dynamic principles: First are the research findings that groups are wasteful and inefficient, and second, that participation in decision making leads to commitment. The NDM recommends that leaders adjust their decision style depending on the degree to which the quality of the decision is important and the likelihood that employees will accept the decision.

Leader’s Decision Styles

The NDM identifies four decision methods available to leaders ( Vroom and Jago, 1988 ). The first method is autocratic (A), in which the leader makes a decision with little or no involvement from followers. The second decision method is consultation (C), which means that the leader consults with followers yet retains the final decision-making authority. The third decision method is group (G). Here, the leader relies on consensus building to solve a problem. The final method involves total delegation (D) of decision making to one employee. The decision styles and their subcategories are summarized in Table 3-3 .

A leader must decide which style to use depending on the situation that the leader and the group face and on whether the problem involves a group or one individual. Individual problems affect only one person, whereas group problems can affect a group or individual. For example, deciding on raises for individual employees is an individual problem, whereas scheduling vacations is a group problem. Similarly, deciding on which employees should receive training or undertake overseas assignment is an individual problem, whereas moving a business to another state or cutting down a city service is a group problem. The distinction between the two is not always clear; individual problems can affect others, and group problems can have an impact on individuals.

Contingency Factors and Predictions of the Model

The two central contingency factors for the Normative Decision Model are the quality of the decision and the need for acceptance and commitment by followers. Other contingency factors to consider are whether the leader has enough relevant information to make a sound decision, whether the problem is structured and clear, the likelihood that followers will accept the leader’s decision, whether the employees agree with the organizational goals, whether employees are cohesive, and whether they have enough information to make a decision alone. Table 3-4 presents the eight contingency factors.

Table 3-3 Decision Styles in the Normative Decision Model

Alternate View

Decision Style

AI

AII

CI

CII

GI

GII

DI

Description

Unassisted decision

Ask for specific information but make decisions alone

Ask for specific information and ideas from each group member

Ask for information and ideas from whole group

Ask for one person’s help; mutual exchange based on expertise

Group shares information and ideas and reaches consensus

Other person analyzes problem and makes decision

Who makes the decision

Leader

Leader

Leader

Leader with considerable group input

Leader and one other person

Group with leader input

Other person

Type of Problem

Group and individual

Group and individual

Group and individual

Group

Individual

Group

Individual

Note: Key: A = Autocratic, C = Consultative, G = Group

Sources: V. H. Vroom and A. G. Jago. The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988 ); and V. H. Vroom and P. W. Yetton. Leadership and Decision Making (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973 ).

Table 3-4  Contingency Factors in the Normative Decision Model

Contingency Factor

Question to Ask

Quality requirement (QR)

How important is the quality of the decision?

Commitment requirement (CR)

How important is employee commitment to the implementation of the decision?

Leader information (LI)

Does the leader have enough information to make a high-quality decision?

Structure of the problem (ST)

Is the problem clear and well structured?

Commitment probability (CP)

How likely is employee commitment to the solution if the leader makes the decision alone?

Goal congruence (GC)

Do employees agree with and support organizational goals?

Employee conflict (CO)

Is there conflict among employees over a solution?

Subordinate information (SI)

Do employees have enough information to make a high-quality decision?

Sources: V. H. Vroom and A. G. Jago, The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988 ); and V. H. Vroom and P. W. Yetton, Leadership and Decision Making (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973 ).

The NDM relies on a decision tree, as shown in Figure 3-2 . Leaders ask a series of questions listed in Table 3-4 ; the questions relate to the contingency factors and should be asked sequentially. By responding “yes” or “no” to each question, managers can determine which decision style(s) is most appropriate for the problem they face. Figure 3-2 presents the most widely used Normative Decision Model and is labeled “time efficient,” based on the assumption that consultation and participation require time and are not efficient ( Vroom and Jago, 1988 ). Thus, whenever appropriate, the model leans toward more autocratic decision making. A second version of the model, labeled “time investment,” focuses on the development of followers at the expense of efficiency. This version recommends more participative decision making whenever possible.

Figure 3-2 Normative Decision Model

Source: “Decision-Process Flow Chart for Both Individual and Group Problems” from Leadership and Decision-Making by Victor and Philip W. Yetton © 1973. All rights are controlled by the University of Pittsburgh Press. Pittsburgh, PA 15260. Used by permission of the University of Pittsburgh Press.

An autocratic decision-making style is appropriate in the following situations:

· When the leader has sufficient information to make a decision

· When the quality of the decision is not essential

· When employees do not agree with each other

· When employees do not agree with the goals of the organization

A consultative style of decision making is appropriate in the following situations:

· The leader has sufficient information, but the employees demand participation to implement the decision.

· The leader has insufficient information, and employee consultation will help the leader gather more information as well as develop commitment.

· Followers generally agree with the goals of the organization.

A group-oriented decision style should be used when the leader does not have all the information, quality is important, and employee commitment is essential. Delegation is used to assign the decision to a single individual who has the needed information, competence, and organizational commitment to make and implement it.

Evaluation and Application

Several research studies support the NDM in a variety of settings ( Crouch and Yetton, 1987 ; Tjosvold, Wedley, and Field, 1986 ), including evaluating historical decisions ( Duncan, LaFrance, and Ginter, 2003 ). The model has also been applied in not-for-profit settings with some success ( Lawrence, Deagen, and Debbie, 2001 ), and recent research on sharing information with followers further support the contingency approach presented by the model ( Vidal and Möller, 2007 ). The decision methods are clearly defined, and the contingency factors included are based on extensive research about group dynamics and participative management.

Some practitioners and theorists argue that the model is too complex to provide practical value. Few managers have the time to work their way through the decision tree. Furthermore, the assumption that leaders have the ability to use any of the decision styles equally well might be flawed. Not all leaders can be autocratic for one decision, consultative for another, and group oriented for still others. In addition, because the model relies on a manager’s self-report, it may be subject to some bias ( Parker, 1999 ).