Chapter 13 – Contingency Theories of Leadership
13-1
Part 4: Focus on the Situation
Chapter 13: Contingency Theories of Leadership
Leader
Chapter 13 – Contingency Theories of Leadership
13-2
Chapter 13 Outline
Contingency Theories of Leadership
Introduction
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory
Concluding Thoughts about the LMX Model
The Situational Leadership Model
Leader Behaviors
Follower Readiness
Prescriptions of the Model
Concluding Thoughts about the Situational Leadership Model
Chapter 13 – Contingency Theories of Leadership
13-3
Key Learning Points
Introduction
Although the book has attempted to segregate the various aspects of the LFS framework into its
distinct components, it is true there is a great deal of overlap, and the task of separating them was
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory
Leader-Member Exchange Theory is a contingency theory that posits leaders do not interact with all
followers in the same way. The leader forms unique linkages with members of two groups: in-groups
and out-groups. In-groups are comprised of followers who have a high-quality exchange relationship
The Normative Decision Model
Vroom and Yetton’s (1973) model was designed to improve only one specific aspect of leadership
effectiveness—decision making. As a first step, they developed a continuum of decision-making styles
ranging from completely autocratic to completely democratic. Next, they established criteria to
Chapter 13 – Contingency Theories of Leadership
13-4
The Situational Leadership® Model
The Situational Leadership Theory/Model originated in 1969 (Hersey & Blanchard). The
fundamental premise is that leaders need to use different styles with different followers and in
different situations. Therefore, it begs the following questions: 1) Is there an optimum way for leaders
The Contingency Model
Fiedler’s (1967) contingency model of leadership is the earliest and most well-known theory. It is
often viewed as the polar opposite of SLT, in the sense that Fiedler argues that leader behavior is not
flexible, rather leaders are very stable and consistent over time. Therefore, selecting the right kind of
The Path-Goal Theory
The most sophisticated and comprehensive of the contingency theories is House & Dressler’s (1974)
path-goal Theory that has expectancy theory (a cognitive approach) as the underlying mechanism. At
the most fundamental level, the effective leader will provide or ensure the availability of valued
rewards for followers (the goal) and then help them find the best way of getting there (the path).
Chapter 13 – Contingency Theories of Leadership
13-5
Chapter 13 – Contingency Theories of Leadership
13-6
Brief Definitions of the Key Terms for Chapter 12
Leader–member exchange: A contingency theory of leadership that posits that leaders do not
interact with all followers in the same way resulting in the development of in-groups (groups of
followers with high quality exchange relationships with leaders) and out-groups (groups of
followers with low quality exchange relationships with leaders).
differences (often accentuated for the out-group) become cemented.
Normative Decision Model: A theory designed to improve leadership effectiveness by focusing
on the decision-making process (developed by Vroom and Yetton).
Autocratic processes: Decision-making style at one end of a continuum characterized by the
leader making the decision (with or without follower input).
Consultative processes: Decision-making style between autocratic and group process on the
continuum characterized by sharing the problem and collecting input; however, the leader’s
changes on (developed by Hersey and Blanchard, sometimes referred to as Situational
Leadership Theory—SLT).
Task behaviors: Leadership behavior category, in SLT, specifying the degree to which a leader
spells out the responsibilities of an individual or a group (aka initiating structure).
Relationship behaviors: Leadership behavior category, in SLT, specifying the degree to which a
Chapter 13 – Contingency Theories of Leadership
13-7
Low-LPC leaders: Represents a leader’s score on the LPC scale suggesting they are mostly
motivated by the task and derive satisfaction from task accomplishment.
High-LPC leaders: Represents a leader’s score on the LPC scale suggesting they are mostly
motivated by relationships and derive satisfaction from developing and maintaining close
interpersonal relationships.
Situational favorability: Critical variable in the contingency model that specifies how much
control over the followers the leader has; three components include are leader-member relations,
task structure, and position power.
Chapter 13 – Contingency Theories of Leadership
13-8
Overview of the Learning Resources for Chapter 13
Exercise 13-1: The Normative Decision Model. The 25-minute exercise has students practice
applying the normative model decision tree to four different case studies. The keys to the case
studies are provided.
Exercise 13-2: Hoosiers. In this 60 minute exercise, students watch the movie Hoosiers as pre-
Exercise 13-3: The Situational Leadership® Model. In this 45-minute exercise, students learn
Exercise 13-5: The Path-Goal Theory. In this 45-minute exercise, students learn about and apply
the Path-Goal Theory to Case Study #6. The key to the case study is provided.
Case Studies: The minicase, “Big Changes for a Small Hospital,” at the end of Chapter 13 can be
used to apply the Normative Decision Model, Situational Leadership® Theory, the Contingency
Chapter 13 – Contingency Theories of Leadership
13-9
Sample Lesson Plans for Chapter 13
Lesson 1: 60 minutes
Pre-work: Exercise 13-1, the Normative Decision Model.
Lesson Plan: The purpose of this lesson is to give students hands-on, practical experience applying
Vroom and Yetton’s Normative Decision Model to leadership case studies.
When selecting the case studies, we recommend you use case studies 1 and 2 (shorter and more direct) or
case studies 3 and 4 (longer and more complex/involved) as a set. It is useful to have more than 1 group
complete each specific case—often times, they might reach different conclusions, which provides fertile
discussion and debriefing material.
• Instructors provide an overview (or lead a discussion) of Contingency Theories of Leadership (5
minutes).
Lesson 2: 60 minutes
Pre-work: Exercises: 13-3, Situational Leadership® Model; 13-4, the Contingency Model; 13-5, the Path-
Goal Theory. Students should be divided into small groups (3 groups work best) and assigned one of the
individuals, not as a group).
Lesson Plan: The purpose of this lesson is to give students hands-on, practical experience applying the
contingency theories to leadership case studies.
• Instructors provide an overview (or lead a discussion) of Contingency Theories of Leadership (5
minutes).
• Have students break out into their groups and discuss the case and assigned theory (30 minutes).
Chapter 13 – Contingency Theories of Leadership
13–10
Minicase, “Big Changes for a Small Hospital,” Sample Answers
Question 1: Consider the factors from the Situational Leadership® Model outlined in
Figures 13.3 and 13.4. Apply these factors to Jacobs and Windber.
What is the task to be accomplished?
What was the level of follower readiness?
Given the outdated furniture and dismal shape of the hospital environment as well as the
Leadership style selected?
Participating—low task and high relationship (based on R3 assessment above). Jacobs began his
Question 2: How do you think Jacobs would score on the least preferred co-worker scale?
Why?
Definitely a high-LPC leader. High-LPC leaders derive their primary motivation and source of
Question 3: Based on the success of Windber, in what range would you guess the overall
situational favorability might fall for Jacobs on the continuum illustrated in Figure 13.6?
At the beginning of the turn around, it seems clear the situational favorability was pretty low—it
could be assessed as poor L-M relations, unstructured, and high position power (octant 7), which
Chapter 13 – Contingency Theories of Leadership
13–11
Chapter 13 Exercises & Instructions
Exercise 13-1
Exercise Title: The Normative Decision Model
Purpose: To apply the decision tree of Vroom and Yetton’s Normative Decision Model to different case
studies.
Summary: Give leadership decision cases to students, making sure they have the definitions of the
different decision styles. Have the students form small groups, and ask the groups to first review and
Chapter 13 – Contingency Theories of Leadership
13–12
Decision Tree Key
Case One: Small Computer Company
Question Answer
A NO
Case Two: Headquarters of a Large Manufacturing Company
Question Answer
A YES