A common concern about focusing on leadership traits or behaviors is that, while these might matter, researchers have not successfully identified the traits and behaviors that universally apply. Decades after identifying the traits of effective leaders, Stogdill (1948) acknowledged the problems with traits theory by concluding, “A person does not become a leader by virtue of possession of some combination of traits” (p. 76). Similarly, a problem with identifying the ideal behavior and the best style for effective leadership is that people and situations continually change; what works in one situation might not work in another.
Situational theories emerged to explain how different situations required different leadership styles. Albert Murphy (1941) argued that emphasizing the individual as a leader was the main fault of most leadership studies. To Murphy, understanding leadership requires studying the situation with a sociological, not psychological approach. “Leadership does not reside in the person. It is a function of the whole situation” (674).
The situation calls for certain types of action; the leader does not inject leadership but is the instrumental factor through which the situation is brought to the solution” (674). From this perspective, the situation defines the leader, and the leader fills the need of the situation. Leadership emerges when an individual meets the needs of the situation. Understanding leadership as a process emphasizes the fluidity of dynamic situations in which the components of leadership change with the situation.
In this section, I will review the assumptions, applications, and limitations of foundational situational theories, including Fielder’s (1964) contingency theory, House’s path-goal theory (1974), and Hersey and Blanchard’s (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988) situational theory. Next, I will consider Kerr and Jermier’s (1974) substitutes for leadership theory, which attempts to explain the situational factors that mitigate or need for leadership effectiveness. I will conclude by analyzing a personal experience that demonstrates applied contingency theory concepts.
Fiedler’s contingency theory
Fred Fiedler (1964; Fiedler & Mahar, 1979) argued that context determines the leader. Good leadership is a consequence of matching the individual with the challenge. To demonstrate this, Fiedler presented a contingency model that shows three variables controlling leadership effectiveness: leader-member relations, task structure, and position power. The respect and trust that followers have for the leader determine the leader-member relations, which can be good or bad. The structure of job assignments determines the task structure. Task structure is either high or low. The leader's influence over a subordinate’s rewards and punishments determines the leader’s position power, which can be strong or weak.
Plotting the effectiveness of task-oriented and relationship-oriented leaders against the variables controlling leadership effectiveness, Fiedler (1964) asserted that a task-oriented leader will perform best in favorable or unfavorable situations, while a relationship-oriented leader will perform best in moderately favorable situations. If a leader’s style does not match a situation, Fiedler proposed that the situation must be modified to fit the leader, or the leader must be replaced.
A practical implication of Fiedler’s (1964) contingency model is that leaders need to understand their styles and the situation. This can help them modify the situation to match their style or behavior to match the situation. The model also helps leaders recognize how to compensate in situations over which they have limited control. For example, if a leader has a weak position of power, the leader can compensate by building good relationships. Similarly, a leader might overcome a weak task structure through training and experience.
House’s path-goal theory
Applying the expectancy model of motivation, Robert House (1974) proposed a path-goal theory of leadership that proposed leadership behaviors are acceptable when followers perceive that the leader is a source of satisfaction or is laying a path to satisfaction [See Image 5: House and Mitchell’s Path-Goal Theory of Leadership]. To House, motivation depends on self-efficacy and desire, meaning that the individual believes they can accomplish the goal and wants to do so. Leadership behavior motivates performance when it reduces roadblocks to reaching goals, provides the support that followers need to achieve goals, and provides meaningful rewards for accomplishing goals.
House’s (1996) path-goal theory offers two classes of situational variables: environmental factors and follower contingency factors. Environmental factors are outside of a follower’s control, including variables like the task structure, the formal authority system, and workgroup dynamics. The follower contingency factors are the variables that are part of the follower’s personality, including locus of control, ability to accomplish the task, the need to achieve, experience, and clarity. Environmental factors determine the type of behavior a leader should exhibit to maximize outcomes.
In the original theory, House (1974; 1996) proposed four leadership styles: Directive, Supportive, Participative, and Achievement-oriented. Directive leadership is like initiating structure in that it tells subordinates what to do and how to do it. Path-goal theory predicts that directive leadership positively affects followers when their tasks are ambiguous. In contrast, it negatively affects followers who have unclear tasks. Supportive leadership is similar to consideration in that it emphasizes supporting the needs and well-being of followers while promoting a friendly environment.
Path-goal theory predicts that supportive leadership increases subordinate satisfaction when tasks are repetitive and unpleasant. Achievement-oriented leadership sets challenging goals, stresses performance, and demonstrates confidence in the ability of followers to attain high-performance standards. Path-goal theory predicts that achievement-oriented leadership promotes follower confidence and action to accomplish challenging goals when their tasks are ambiguous and non-repetitive.
Participative leadership consults with subordinates, seeks their suggestions to develop a consensus, and then does what the group wants to do. Path-goal theory predicts that participative leadership supports satisfaction when tasks are non-repetitive, and the subordinates are willing to submit to the leader.
By the end of the 20th century, House (1996) believed that leadership is a more complicated process that requires a broader range of leadership behavior than he had accounted for in his original theory. Other behaviors he proposed included path-goal clarifying, achievement-oriented, work facilitation, supportive, interaction facilitation, group-oriented decision-making, representation and networking, and value-based. Follower characteristics determine how the leader interprets the follower and the environment and interact with the environmental variables and leadership behavior to influence the outcome.
According to the initial statement of the path-goal model, an employee’s performance and satisfaction will improve if the leader compensates for elements lacking in either the environment or the employee (House & Mitchell, Path-goal theory of leadership. , 1974). In the modified theory, House expanded the outcome of effective leadership to include follower motivation, follower satisfaction, follower performance, acceptance of leader by followers, and work-unit performance.
Although the path-goal theory is a complex construct with little research support (Yukl, 2010; Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2005), it offers essential insights for leadership practice. First, the path-goal theory suggests that effective leaders can adjust leadership styles to compensate for variables in the environment and the employee. Second, the theory offers environmental and follower variables that may be essential contingency factors influencing leadership outcomes. Leadership training programs can help leaders to diagnose situations and modify behavior or variables to influence outcomes.
Hersey and Blanchard’s situational theory
Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard (1988) offered a situational leadership model that shows how leaders should change their styles according to the willingness and capacity of their followers [See Image 6: Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Model]. A primary assumption of situational leadership is that a “best” leadership style does not exist. Situational leadership adapts the same dimensions used by Fiedler (1964), task and relationship behaviors. The critical difference is that either dimension can be high or low, depending on the willingness and ability of the follower. The result is a grid that looks like a simplified version of Blake and Mouton’s (1964) managerial grid. Still, Hersey and Blanchard say that the difference is that the managerial grid measures concern for people and production. In contrast, the situational leadership model measures tasks and relationships.
In the situational leadership model (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988), high relationship behavior means that the follower is unwilling to do the work, requiring a high amount of support from the leader. Low relationship behavior means the follower is willing to do the work, so it requires low support from the leader. High task behavior means that a follower cannot do the work, so needs careful guidance from the leader. Low task behavior means that the follower can do the work, so it requires little guidance from the leader. From this model, four leadership styles emerge:
Delegate. The delegating leader puts decision authority into the hands of the group. Delegating is the optimum style when followers want to do the job and know how to do it.
Participate. The participating leader involves subordinates in the decision process but makes the final decision. Participating works best when followers can do the job but require support.
Sell. The selling leader decides what to do without involving followers, then persuades them that they have made the correct decision. Selling is the optimum style when subordinates lack the desire or capacity to do the job.
Tell. The telling leader decides what to do without involving followers and then directs the actions of the group. Telling is the optimum style when followers want to do the job but do not know how.
The situational leadership model has become a popular model in management texts and consulting applications. However, critics assert that the situational leadership model has limited empirical support (Blank, Weitzel, & Green, 1990). Graeff (1983) sees a “minor” contribution from the situational leadership model because it emphasizes the importance of “behavioral flexibility” due to the “situational nature of leadership” and because it recognizes the fundamental role the follower plays in leadership. However, Graeff concludes that the model and the measurement tool are “conceptually ambiguous,” contributing to the “serious weakness of the model” (p. 290).
Kerr and Jermier’s substitutes for leadership theory
Situational leadership theory suggests that leadership is neither direct nor straightforward, while path-goal theory and contingency theory suggest various situational factors mediate leadership effectiveness. This means that tasks, subordinates, and unseen factors can influence the effectiveness of leadership behavior, bringing into question the assumption that an ideal leadership style exists for any situation. To Steven Kerr and John Jermier (1976), contingency theories that attempt to explain the influence of a powerful superior on subordinates are limited because they fail to consider factors that can mitigate the effectiveness or need for leadership. Individuals, groups, tasks, and other variables can act as substitutes for leadership that diminish leadership effectiveness or need for leadership regardless of the behavior or style. Substitutes for leadership theory offers an intuitive explanation of how different leadership actions have different results in different situations.
Though the substitutes for leadership theory has received little research support (Yukl, 2010), it helps to illuminate how environmental factors influence leader and follower behavior and provides practical applications for organizational and personal life. Rules, rewards, group dynamics, and individual characteristics are just a few variables that can influence individual and group behavior more than a leader (Kerr & Jermier, 1976). In organizations, no matter how much a leader inspires employees to do their jobs, bureaucratic restrictions might prevent them from performing. Likewise, a self-managing employee might be able to perform their job, regardless of being under a poor leader.
Outside of work, substitutes for leadership theory provides axioms for helping people understand how they can perform even when under the influence of lousy leadership; poor leadership is no excuse for substandard performance. For example, a motivated college student can face a classroom leader (teacher) who is disconnected from the classroom and unable to communicate crucial concepts. Rather than wasting a semester sitting in meaningless lectures, the student could choose to become a self-sufficient learner in the subject by deeply exploring and engaging in study groups.
Similarly, an aspiring youth athlete can face a coach who has neither experience in the game nor knowledge about developing individuals and groups. Determined to excel despite poor coaching, individuals on the team can turn to their social networks for developmental support, conducting informal practice with parents, friends, and even teammates.
These examples demonstrate how individual character and initiative can substitute for leadership; individuals with motivation, networks, and resources can accomplish great things despite their leaders.
The inverse position also deserves notice; strong leadership can create a highly cohesive environment in which the leader sacrifices individual, initiative, and critical thinking for the sake of the group goals. People who rely heavily on leadership to guide their choices and behaviors might have a diminished capacity to perform at work or in life without leadership influence or could be influenced easily to act for the leader's interests at their own expense.
For example, I taught graduate business management courses to active duty military officers on a military installation. I saw how a command-and-control collective developed layers of rules and processes that act as supporters of leadership and replacements for leadership when voids emerge. These rules and processes have been developed into formulas and techniques drilled into all personnel so that others can easily fill a broken command link. The rules also help subordinates perform even when the leader is insufficient. A rigid hierarchy of power and rules can work in a static command-and-control environment. They can diminish the system's capacity to react in the face of a dynamic enemy who operates under a different set of rules and can limit individual initiative and growth. Carried outside the military sector, a career spent under a command-and-control leadership structure can result in a diminished capacity to cope in dynamic civilian environments or to make personal decisions without a rigid chain of command.
In other words, just as some individuals can perform despite weak leadership, others may not be able to perform without strong leadership. Those who rely too heavily on a leader to guide their behaviors might not be able to perform effectively at work or in life without the leader or could be easily influenced to act for the leader's interests at the expense of themselves or others.
Lessons from situational theory
Contingency theory continues to generate considerable focus within a head hunting industry that matches leaders with challenges, but the theory has received “mixed results” and limited empirical support (Pierce & Newstrom, 2008; Yukl, 2010). Most contemporary leadership theories consider contingency as a critical aspect of leadership. Still, theorists tend to disagree on the specifics of a contingency approach (Jex, 2002). Critical levels of disagreement include the aspects that a leader should assess and the level of adaptability the leader can or should have. For example, Fielder (1979) proposed that leaders have a pre-determined leadership style that cannot change, so a leader with the right style should be matched to the situation. In contrast, Hersey and Blanchard (1988) propose that behavior is malleable, meaning that a leader can modify personal behaviors to match the situation.
During my undergraduate days, I obtained a supervisor job on a construction site. I had just finished an undergraduate leadership course. I was looking forward to practicing the democratic leadership style that I was sure would be the most effective way of getting people to follow me willingly. I would set the example and give others the choice of how they would follow. I would never yell; I would always be supportive. In other words, I would be the ideal servant leader who I thought I had always wanted.
When my boss saw that my group was accomplishing little, he started throwing people against the wall while screaming orders and making threats to people's lives. Before he left, he pulled me aside and said, “You can’t let up on these [expletives] for a second. They’re here to get paid, not to work—they will do as little as you let them. If you want to get anything done, you have to be a [expletive]. If you can’t whip them into action, you’re fired.”
I learned a hard lesson in situational leadership: the democratic leadership style was entirely ineffective on that construction site. The nature of the work and the workers required a more assertive, hands-on approach with which I was uncomfortable. However, I was able to adapt my behavior to fit the needs of the situation.
I don’t think I became the [expletive] that my boss said I needed to be, but I was able to change my approach in a way that led my group to achieve its requirements. The critical lesson from situational leadership theory here is that effective leadership requires the ability to assess and understanding contextual dynamics against the needs of the organization to apply an approach that addresses the willingness and ability of the followers to work together to accomplish goals.
###