This week I’ll be talking about theories of contingency leadership, defined by Lussier & Achua (2016) as a guideline of which leadership style is best suited for a particular situation. Some factors that must be considered include the disposition and experience of the leader; what the followers are able to do and whether they’re motivated to do it; and the project’s nature.
Looking back on the jobs I’ve had in communications over the years, there have been some differences in terms of the situation at hand. With news, I was putting out a product on a daily basis, so there was a great deal of urgency and thus the emphasis was on doing things the correct way. Outside of news, I’ve found that I have a bit more license as to how I do my job. The deadlines still remain, but they aren’t as frequent as they used to be. The culture where I am now is also a lot more supportive. Under the contingency leadership model, the objective is either dictated by the task itself or the need to build relationships (Lussier & Achua, 2016). My opinion is that the news business is much more task-focused, while nonprofit work is about building relationships out in the community.
In some ways, contingency leadership complements the ideas of what I like to call the “Big Ten models” because they were all introduced by researchers at Michigan, Ohio State, and my alma mater, Iowa, all who compete athletically in the Big Ten Conference. Each of these models that examine behavior closely reflects the contingency leadership idea because they indicate that leaders act based either on the job or maintaining relationships. Ohio State goes a little more in-depth, suggesting that leaders may prioritize the job, the employees, or both or neither equally. Iowa, meanwhile, focuses more on the personality of the leader themselves. Michigan’s model matches the contingency leadership theory the closest (Lussier & Achua, 2016).
Now as much as I love my Hawkeyes, I really have to give the nod to Ohio State in terms of behavior model preference just because it gives leaders a much more detailed analysis of how they carry themselves. Once armed with that knowledge, the leader can then assess whether their style fits the scenario in front of them and adapt as needed.
Reference
Lussier, R.N., & Achua, C.F. (2016). Leadership: Theory, application, & skill development (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.