Instructor Manual

Daft, The Leadership Experience, 8e, 9780357716304; Chapter 3: Contingency

Approaches to Leadership
Table of Contents
Purpose and Perspective of the Chapter 2
Chapter Objectives 2
Key Terms 3
What's New in This Chapter 3
Chapter Outline 4
Additional Resources 10

Purpose and Perspective of the Chapter

The most important point in this chapter is that situational variables affect
leadership outcomes. The contingency approaches were developed to systematically
address the relationship between a leader and the organization. The contingency
approaches focus on how the components of leadership style, subordinate
characteristics, and situational elements affect one another. Hersey and
Blanchard’s situational theory, Fiedler’s contingency model, the path-goal theory,
the Vroom-Jago model, and the substitutes-for-leadership concept each examine how
different situations call for different styles of leadership behavior.
Hersey and Blanchard contend that leaders can adjust their task or relationship
style to accommodate the development level of their subordinates. According to
Fiedler, leaders can determine whether their leadership style is suitable for the
situation. Task-oriented leaders tend to do better in very favorable or very
unfavorable situations, whereas relationship-oriented leaders do best in situations
of intermediate favorability. The path-goal theory states that leaders can use a
style that appropriately clarifies the path to desired rewards. The Vroom-Jago
model indicates that leaders can choose a participative decision style based on
contingencies such as quality requirement, commitment requirement, or the leader’s
knowledge and expertise. In addition, concern for time (the need for a fast
decision) versus concern for follower development is taken into account. Finally,
the substitutes-for-leadership concept recommends that leaders adjust their style
to provide resources not otherwise provided in the organizational situation.
By discerning the characteristics of tasks, subordinates, and organizations,
leaders can determine the style that increases the likelihood of successful
leadership outcomes. Therefore, effective leadership depends partly on developing
diagnostic skills and being flexible in one’s leadership behavior.
Chapter Objectives
The following objectives are addressed in this chapter:
03.01 Describe how leadership is often contingent on people and situations.
03.02 Apply Hersey and Blanchard’s situational theory of leader style to the level
of follower readiness.
03.03 Apply Fiedler’s contingency model to key relationships among leader style,
situational favorability, and group task performance.
03.04 Explain the path-goal theory of leadership.
03.05 Use the Vroom-Jago model to identify the correct amount of follower
participation in specific decisions.
03.06 Explain the power of situational variables to substitute for or neutralize
the need for leadership.
[return to top]
Key Terms
Contingency: a theory meaning that one thing depends on other things.
Contingency approaches: approaches that seek to delineate the characteristics of
situations and followers and examine the leadership styles that can be used
effectively.
Situational theory: Hersey and Blanchard’s extension of the Leadership Grid
focusing on the characteristics of followers as the important element of the
situation, and consequently, of determining effective leader behavior.
Fiedler’s contingency model: a model designed to diagnose whether a leader is task-
oriented or relationship-oriented and match leader style to the situation.
Path-goal theory: a contingency approach to leadership in which the leader’s
responsibility is to increase subordinates’ motivation by clarifying the behaviors
necessary for task accomplishment and rewards.
Vroom-Jago contingency model: a model that focuses on varying degrees of
participative leadership and how each level of participation influences the quality
and accountability of decisions.
Substitute: a situational variable that makes leadership unnecessary or redundant.
Neutralizer: a situational characteristic that counteracts the leadership style and
prevents the leader from displaying certain behaviors.
[return to top]
What's New in This Chapter
The following elements are improvements in this chapter from the previous edition:
• New examples on contingency approaches to leadership.
• New examples on follower readiness.
• New examples for selecting a decision style.
• New Put It Into Practice sections.
[return to top]

Chapter Outline
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, former New York Governor
Andrew Cuomo had typically been considered a tough, domineering, and aggressive
leader who almost forced people to accomplish the tasks, goals, and priorities he
wanted. But as daily death rates from COVID soared in New York, Cuomo instituted a
daily televised coronavirus briefing. Each day for months, Cuomo shared the grim
news with the public, lamenting the loss of life, expressing sadness for the
families, and praising the healthcare workers who were fighting to beat back the
deadly virus and prevent more deaths. He admitted when he didn’t know something and
deferred to the experts. Cuomo’s ability to express empathy and compassion while
maintaining a calm, focused, and strategic approach to the
COVID-19 crisis enabled him to engage people’s trust.
However, very few people who had worked with Cuomo were surprised when he reverted
to a tough, task-focused approach as the pandemic shifted into the vaccination
stage. Cuomo faced strong criticism from those saying his tough-talk tactics were
creating pushback and animosity. New York State Health Department officials say
morale plummeted after the governor seized control over pandemic policy. For his
part, Cuomo said the scale of the pandemic had overwhelmed the state’s public
health planning. “My job is to get the vaccinations done as soon as possible,”
Cuomo unapologetically said. Rebecca Katz, a progressive political consultant,
reminded everyone: “This is who he has always been.
Researchers of leader traits and behaviors eventually discovered that many
different leadership styles can be effective. What, then, determines the success of
a leadership style? One factor that affects what leadership approach will be most
effective is the circumstance in which leadership occurs. Cuomo’s tough, task-
oriented style was inappropriate and ineffective for a situation in which thousands
of people across the state were dying every day from a new, out-of-control virus,
so he shifted his behavior toward a strongly people-oriented style.
The important point of this chapter is that the most effective leadership approach
depends on many factors. Understanding the contingency approaches can help leaders
adapt their approach, although it is important to recognize that leaders also
develop their ability to adapt through experience and practice.
I. The Contingency Approach (3-1, PPT Slides 4-6)
Because researchers couldn’t find universal leader traits or behaviors that were
always effective, they began to look at the situation around the leaders. They
examined the relationship between a leader’s effectiveness and the situation.
Contingency is a theory meaning that one thing depends on other things. Contingency
approaches seek to delineate the characteristics of situations and followers and
examine the leadership styles that can be used effectively.
Exhibit 3.2 illustrates the four possible behavior approaches:
• Low task-high relationship
• High task-high relationship
• High task-low relationship
• Low task-low relationship
Leadership Code: Three Secrets to Building Strong Leaders
Cracking the code--the three “C’s”:
• Connection
• Communication
• Collaboration
Although most leaders are better at tasks or better at relationships, experts
suggest that a balanced approach is best for long-term results.
Discussion Question #2: Do you think leadership style is fixed and unchangeable, or
can leaders be flexible and adaptable with respect to style? Why?
II. Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Theory (3-2, PPT Slides 7-10)
The situational theory is Hersey and Blanchard’s extension of the Leadership Grid
focusing on the characteristics of followers as the important element of the
situation, and consequently, of determining effective leader behavior.
a. Leader Style
According to the situational theory, a leader can adopt one of four leadership
styles, based on a combination of relationship (concern for people) and task
(concern for production) behavior. The appropriate style depends on the development
level of followers, as shown in Exhibit 3.3.
The situational theory has four leader styles:
• Telling
• Selling
• Participating
• Delegating

b. Follower Readiness
The important contingency in Hersey and Blanchard’s situational theory is the
follower’s development level. The leader determines a follower’s development and
selects the appropriate leader style. Four development levels are recognized:
• R1, Low Readiness
• R2, Moderate Readiness
• R3, High Readiness
• R4, Very High Readiness
Discussion Question #5: If you were a first-level supervisor of a team of
telemarketers, how would you go about assessing the readiness level of your direct
reports. Do you think most leaders can easily shift their leadership style to suit
the readiness level of followers?
III. Fiedler’s Contingency Model (3-2, PPT Slides 11-15)
Fiedler’s contingency model is a model designed to diagnose whether a leader is
task-oriented or relationship-oriented and match leader style to the situation.
a. Leadership Style
The cornerstone of Fiedler’s theory is the extent to which the leader has a
relationship-oriented style or a task-oriented style. Leadership style was measured
with a questionnaire known as the least-preferred coworker (LPC) scale. The
adjectives the leader chooses to describe the LPC determine if the leader is task-
oriented or relationship-oriented.
b. Situation
Fiedler’s model presents the leadership situation in terms of three key elements
that can be either favorable or unfavorable to a leader:
• Leader-member relations
• Task structure
• Position power
c. Contingency Theory
Task-oriented leaders are more effective when the situation is either highly
favorable or highly unfavorable. Relationship-oriented leaders are more effective
in situations of moderate favorability.
A leader needs to know two things to use Fiedler’s contingency theory:
• The leader should know whether they have a relationship-or task-oriented
style.
• The leader should diagnose the situation and determine whether leader-member
relations, task structure, and position power are favorable or unfavorable.
Discussion Question #1: Consider Fiedler’s theory, as illustrated in Exhibit 3.4.
How often do you think very favorable, intermediate, or very unfavorable situations
occur to leaders in real life? Discuss.
LPC leaders may be more effective than either high or low LPC leaders in a majority
of situations. The major impact of Fiedler’s model may have been to increase the
importance of situational factors.
IV. Path-Goal Theory (3-4, PPT Slides 16-22)
The path-goal theory is a contingency approach to leadership in which the leader’s
responsibility is to increase subordinates’ motivation by clarifying the behaviors
necessary for task accomplishment and rewards.
The path-goal model consists of three sets of contingencies:
• Leader style
• Followers and situation
• Rewards to meet followers’ needs
a. Leader Behavior
The path-goal theory suggests a fourfold classification of leader behaviors:
• Supportive leadership
• Directive leadership
• Participative leadership
• Achievement-oriented leadership
Every leader is able to adopt one of the leader behaviors, depending on the
situation.
b. Situational Contingencies
The path-goal theory has two important situational contingencies:
• Personal characteristics of group members
• Work environment
c. Use of Rewards
The leader either helps the subordinate acquire skills and confidence to perform
tasks and achieve available rewards or develops new rewards for subordinates.
Discussion Question #4: Compare Fiedler’s contingency model with the path-goal
theory. What are the similarities and differences? Which do you prefer?
Discussion Question #6: Think back to instructors you have had that had the most
people-oriented style and the most task-oriented style. What contingencies were
present that might explain those differences? Which style did you find most
effective? Why?
V. The Vroom-Jago Contingency Model (3-5, PPT Slides 23-30)
The Vroom-Jago contingency model focuses on varying degrees of participative
leadership and how each level of participation influences the quality and
accountability of decisions. The model has three major components:
• Leader participation styles
• Diagnostic questions to analyze a decision situation
• Series of decision rules
a. Leader Participation Styles
The model has five levels, which are based on how much subordinates participate in
decision making, as shown in Exhibit 3.7:
• Decide
• Consult individually
• Consult group
• Facilitate
• Delegate
b. Diagnostic Questions
Seven diagnostic questions in the following areas can determine how much
subordinates should participate in making a decision:
1. Decision significance.
2. Importance of commitment.
3. Leader expertise.
4. Likelihood of commitment.
5. Group support for goals.
6. Goal expertise.
7. Team competence.
c. Selecting a Decision Style
Time constraints and the opportunity for follower development can also be used to
select a decision-making style.
Leaders can quickly learn to use the model to adapt their styles to fit the
situation. A computer-based program allows greater complexity and precision in the
Vroom-Jago model and incorporates the value of time and follower development as
situational factors.
Discussion Question #7: Do you think leaders should decide on a participative style
based on the most efficient way to reach the decision? Should leaders sometimes let
people participate for other reasons?
VI. Substitutes for Leadership (3-6, PPT Slides 31-32)
In some situations, a leader is not needed to make a decision. A substitute is a
situational variable that makes leadership unnecessary or redundant.
Several situational variables are shown in Exhibit 3.10:
• Organizational variables
• Task characteristics
• Follower characteristics
Discussion Question #3: Consider the leadership position of the department head of
orthopedic surgeons. What task, follower, and organizational factors might serve as
substitutes for leadership in this situation?
A neutralizer is a situational characteristic that counteracts the leadership style
and prevents the leader from displaying certain behaviors. Neutralizers are
identified in Exhibit 3.10.
Discussion Question #8: Consider the situational characteristics of group
cohesiveness and physical separation. How might each of these substitute for or
neutralize task-oriented or people-oriented leadership? Explain.
[return to top]
Additional Resources
1. Kathryn Dill and Te-Ping Chen, “‘Sometimes the Crisis Makes the Leader’:
Andrew Cuomo and Five Lessons on Leadership,” The Wall Street Journal (April 9,
2020), [Link]/articles/some-times-the-crisis-makes-the-leader-andrew-cuomo-
and-five-lessons-on-leadership-11586364647 (accessed July 10, 2020); and Naz
Beheshti, “Steady Hand in a Crisis: What Business Leaders Can Learn from New York
Governor Andrew Cuomo,” Forbes (April 9, 2020), [Link]/sites/
nazbeheshti/2020/04/09/steady-hand-in-a-crisis-what-business-leaders-can-learn-
from-new-york-governor-andrew-cuomo/#31b63e233037 (accessed July 11, 2020).
2. Jesse McKinley and Luis Ferré-Sadurní, “Cuomo’s ‘Bullying’ Style Comes Under
Scrutiny,” The New York Times (February 22, 2021), p. A1.
3. Margot Patrick, “HSBC’s Quiet Man Undone by a Lack of Action,” The Wall
Street Journal (August 5, 2019), [Link]/articles/hsbcs-quiet-man-undone-by-a-
lack-of-action-11565012776 (accessed February 23, 2021); and Sara Castellanos, “How
CIOs in 2020 Rallied Their Companies Around Remote Work,” The Wall Street Journal
(December 18, 2020), [Link]/articles/how-cios-in-2020-rallied-their-companies-
around-remote-work-11608294600 (accessed February 26, 2021).
4. Gary Yukl, Angela Gordon, and Tom Taber, “A Hierarchical Taxonomy of
Leadership Behavior: Integrating a Half Century of Behavior Research,” Journal of
Leadership and Organization Studies 9, no. 1 (2002), pp. 15–32; and Gary Yukl,
“Effective Leadership Behavior: What We Know and What Questions Need More
Attention,” Academy of Management Perspectives (November 2012), pp. 66–81.
5. See Yukl, “Effective Leadership Behavior”; Lee Ellis, “Results/Relationships:
Finding the Right Balance,” Leadership Excellence (October 2012), p. 10; and Kate
Ward, “Personality Style: Key to Effective Leadership,” Leadership Excellence
(August 2012), p. 14.
6. Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. Blanchard, Management of Organizational Behavior:
Utilizing Human Resources, 4th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1982).
7. Thomas Gryta, “The Covid Crisis Taught David Farr the Power and Limits of
Leadership,” The Wall Street Journal (December 4, 2020), [Link]/articles/the-
covid-crisis-taught-david-farr-the-power-and-limits-of-leadership-11607094974
(accessed February 23, 2021).
8. Jonathan Kaufman, “A McDonald’s Owner Becomes a Role Model for Black
Teenagers,” The Wall Street Journal (August 23, 1995), pp. A1, A6.
9. Carol Hymowitz, “New Face at Facebook Hopes to Map Out a Road to Growth,” The
Wall Street Journal (April 14, 2008), p. B1.
10. Cheryl Dahle, “Xtreme Teams,” Fast Company (November 1999), pp. 310–326.
11. Carol Hymowitz, “Managers Find Ways to Get Generations to Close Culture Gap,”
(In the Lead column), The Wall Street Journal (July 9, 2007), p. B1.
12. Fred E. Fiedler, “Assumed Similarity Measures as Predictors of Team
Effectiveness,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 49 (1954), pp. 381–388;
F. E. Fiedler, Leader Attitudes and Group Effectiveness (Urbana, IL: University of
Illinois Press, 1958); and
F. E. Fiedler, A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967).
13. Jeff Horwitz, “Facebook Aims to Curb Some Internal Debate,” The Wall Street
Journal (September 28, 2020); and Deepa Seetharaman, “With Facebook at ‘War,’
Zuckerberg Adopts More Aggressive Style,” The Wall Street Journal (November 18,
2018), [Link]/articles/with-facebook-at-war-zuckerberg-adopts-more-aggressive-
style-1542577980 (accessed July 23, 2020).
14. Reported in George Anders, “Theory & Practice: Tough CEOs Often Most
Successful, a Study Finds,” The Wall Street Journal (November 19, 2007), p. B3.
15. M. J. Strube and J. E. Garcia, “A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Fiedler’s
Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness,” Psychological Bulletin 90 (1981),
pp. 307–321; and L. H. Peters, D. D. Hartke, and J. T. Pohlmann, “Fiedler’s
Contingency Theory of Leadership: An Application of the Meta-Analysis Procedures of
Schmidt and Hunter,” Psychological Bulletin 97 (1985), pp. 274–285.
16. R. Singh, “Leadership Style and Reward Allocation: Does Least Preferred
Coworker Scale Measure Tasks and Relation Orientation?” Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance 27 (1983), pp. 178–197; D. Hosking, “A Critical Evaluation of
Fiedler’s Contingency Hypotheses,” Progress in Applied Psychology 1 (1981), pp.
103–154; Gary Yukl, “Leader LPC Scores: Attitude Dimensions and Behavioral
Correlates,” Journal of Social Psychology 80 (1970), pp. 207–212; G. Graen, K. M.
Alvares, J. B. Orris, and J. A. Martella, “Contingency Model of Leadership
Effectiveness: Antecedent and Evidential Results,” Psychological Bulletin 74
(1970), pp. 285–296; and R. P. Vecchio, “Assessing the Validity of Fiedler’s
Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness:
A Closer Look at Strube and Garcia,” Psychological Bulletin 93 (1983), pp. 404–408.
17. J. K. Kennedy, Jr., “Middle LPC Leaders and the Contingency Model of
Leadership Effectiveness,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 30 (1982),
pp. 1–14; and S. C. Shiflett, “The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness:
Some Implications of Its Statistical and Methodological Properties,” Behavioral
Science 18, no. 6 (1973), pp. 429–440.
18. Roya Ayman, M. M. Chemers, and F. Fiedler, “The Contingency Model of
Leadership Effectiveness: Its Levels of Analysis,” Leadership Quarterly 6, no. 2
(1995), pp. 147–167.
19. Robert J. House, “A Path–Goal Theory of Leadership Effectiveness,”
Administrative Science Quarterly 16 (1971), pp. 321–338.
20. Ibid.
21. M. G. Evans, “Leadership,” in S. Kerr, ed., Organizational Behavior
(Columbus, OH: Grid, 1974), pp. 230–233.
22. Robert J. House and Terrence R. Mitchell, “Path–Goal Theory of Leadership,”
Journal of Contemporary Business (Autumn 1974), pp. 81–97.
23. Ann-Marie Alcántara, “No More Pizza Fridays: Companies Find New Perks for the
Remote Worker,” The Wall Street Journal (June 8, 2020), [Link]/articles/no-
more-pizza-fridays-companies-find-new-perks-for-the-remote-worker-11591610401
(accessed July 31, 2020).
24. Adam Bryant, “Leaders Are Building New Muscles to Deal with the Pandemic,”
Strategy + Business (June 17, 2020), [Link]/blog/Leaders-are-
building-new-muscles-to-deal-with-the-pandemic?gko=7a303 (accessed February 2,
2021).
25. Gary Hamel and Michele Zanini, “Harnessing Everyday Genius: How Michelin
Gives Its Frontline Teams the Power to Make a Difference,” Harvard Business Review
(July–August 2020), pp. 86–95.
26. Pauleanna Reid, “Meet Julia Paige: The Leader Behind Uber’s Global Social
Impact Response to Covid-19,” Forbes (November 9, 2020), [Link]/sites/
pauleannareid/2020/11/09/meet-the-female-leader-behind-ubers-global-social-impact-
response-to-covid-19/?sh=212d6ffc114b (accessed February 24, 2021).
27. Ken Belson, “After New Harassment Claims, Snyder Vows More Oversight of
Washington N.F.L. Team,” The New York Times (August 26, 2020) [Link]/
2020/08/26/sports/football/[Link]#:~:text=the%20main
%20story-,After%20New%20Harassment%20 Claims%2C%20Snyder%20Vows
%20More%20Oversight%20of%20Washington,video%20and%20 propositioning
%20a%20cheerleader (accessed February 24, 2021); and Mark Maske, “Daniel Snyder,
Washington Redskins Owner, Adopts Hands-Off Role—and Team Wins,” The Washington
Post (January 4, 2013), [Link]/sports/redskins/
daniel-snyder-washington-redskins-owner-adopts-hands-off-role-and-team-wins/
2013/01/04/5e258d18-55e3-11e2-a613-ec8d394535c6_story.html (accessed March 8,
2021).
28. Charles Greene, “Questions of Causation in the Path–Goal Theory of
Leadership,” Academy of Management Journal 22 (March 1979), pp. 22–41; and C. A.
Schriesheim and Mary Ann von Glinow, “The Path–Goal Theory of Leadership: A
Theoretical and Empirical Analysis,” Academy of Management Journal 20 (1977), pp.
398–405.
29. Reid, “Meet Julia Paige: The Leader Behind Uber’s Global Social Impact
Response to Covid-19.”
30. V. H. Vroom and Arthur G. Jago, The New Leadership: Managing Participation in
Organizations (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988).
31. The following discussion is based heavily on Victor H. Vroom, “Leadership and
the Decision-Making Process,” Organizational Dynamics 28, no. 4 (Spring 2000), pp.
82–94.
32. Georgia Wells and Maureen Farrell, “Evan Spiegel’s Imperious Style Made
Snapchat a Success— Until Users Fled,” The Wall Street Journal (December 23, 2018),
[Link]/articles/evan-spiegels-imperious-style-made-snapchat-a-successuntil-
users-fled-11545588892 (accessed April 15, 2020).
33. Bill Saporito, “A CEO Takes a Stand,” Inc. (November 2019), pp. 83–87.
34. R. H. G. Field, “A Test of the Vroom–Yetton Normative Model of Leadership,”
Journal of Applied Psychology (October 1982), pp. 523–532; and R. H. G. Field, “A
Critique of the Vroom–Yetton Contingency Model of Leadership Behavior,” Academy of
Management Review 4 (1979), pp. 249–251.
35. Vroom, “Leadership and the Decision-Making Process”; Jennifer T. Ettling and
Arthur G. Jago, “Participation Under Conditions of Conflict: More on the Validity
of the Vroom–Yetton Model,” Journal of Management Studies 25 (1988), pp. 73–83;
Madeline E. Heilman, Harvey A. Hornstein, Jack H. Cage, and Judith K. Herschlag,
“Reactions to Prescribed Leader Behavior as a Function of Role Perspective: The
Case of the Vroom–Yetton Model,” Journal of Applied Psychology (February 1984), pp.
50–60; and Arthur G. Jago and Victor H. Vroom, “Some Differences in the Incidence
and Evaluation of Participative Leader Behavior,” Journal of Applied Psychology
(December 1982), pp. 776–783.
36. Based on a decision problem presented in Victor H. Vroom, “Leadership and
the Decision-Making Process,” Organizational Dynamics 28, no. 4 (Spring, 2000),
pp. 82–94.
37. S. Kerr and J. M. Jermier, “Substitutes for Leadership: Their Meaning and
Measurement,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 22 (1978),
pp. 375–403; and Jon P. Howell and Peter W. Dorfman, “Leadership and Substitutes
for Leadership among Professional and Nonprofessional Workers,” Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science 22 (1986), pp. 29–46.
38. J. P. Howell, D. E. Bowen, P. W. Dorfman, S. Kerr, and P. M. Podsakoff,
“Substitutes for Leadership: Effective Alternatives to Ineffective Leadership,”
Organizational Dynamics (Summer 1990), pp. 21–38.
39. Howell et al., “Substitutes for Leadership: Effective Alternatives.”
40. Bryant, “Leaders Are Building New Muscles to Deal with the Pandemic.”
41. P. M. Podsakoff, S. B. MacKenzie, and W. H. Bommer, “Transformational Leader
Behaviors and Substitutes for Leadership as Determinants of Employee Satisfaction,
Commitment, Trust, and Organizational Behaviors,” Journal of Management 22, no. 2
(1996), pp. 259–298.
42. Howell et al., “Substitutes for Leadership.”
43. Reprinted with permission from Gary Yukl, Leadership in Organizations, 7th
ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010), pp. 119–120.
[return to top]