Fiedler’s Contingency Theory Vs Situational Leadership Theory
Leadership theories have evolved to emphasize the importance of adaptability and flexibility in leadership styles.
Two popular theories that focus on leadership effectiveness based on the situation are Fiedler’s Contingency Theory and Situational Leadership Theory of Hersey and Blanchard’s.
While both emphasize the need to adjust leadership styles to fit the context and followers, they do so in distinct ways.
What is Fiedler’s Contingency Theory?
Developed by Fred Fiedler in the 1960s, Fiedler’s Contingency Theory is based on the idea that a leader’s effectiveness depends on both their leadership style and the situational factors they face.
According to Fiedler, a leader’s style is relatively fixed and can be either task-oriented or relationship-oriented. The theory suggests that a leader’s style must align with the situation for them to be most effective.
Situational factors include leader-member relations, task structure, and position power.
These factors determine the “favorableness” of the situation, with task-oriented leaders being more effective in extremely favorable or unfavorable situations, and relationship-oriented leaders being more effective in moderately favorable situations.
What is Situational Leadership Theory (SLT)?
Developed by Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard, Situational Leadership Theory proposes that no single leadership style is best. Instead, effective leaders adjust their leadership style depending on the maturity or readiness of their followers.
Readiness is defined by the follower’s ability to perform a task (competence) and willingness to take responsibility (commitment).
The theory identifies four leadership styles (Directing, Coaching, Supporting, and Delegating) that correspond to four follower readiness levels (D1, D2, D3, and D4).
Unlike Fiedler’s theory, SLT emphasizes the leader’s ability to adapt their behavior, rather than being constrained by a fixed leadership style.
Similarities between Fiedler’s Contingency Theory and Situational Leadership Theory
While both theories focus on adjusting leadership styles based on the situation, they share several common principles:
Context Matters
Both theories emphasize the importance of context in determining leadership effectiveness.
In Fiedler’s model, the situational variables dictate which style is most effective, while in SLT, the leader adapts their style based on the follower’s readiness.
Focus on the Task and Relationships
Both models acknowledge that effective leadership is a balance between task-oriented behaviors and relationship-oriented behaviors.
Fiedler’s theory focuses on a leader’s orientation (task or relationship), and SLT stresses the need for leaders to adjust their approach between directing (task-focused) and supporting (relationship-focused).
Flexibility is Key
While Fiedler’s theory posits that leaders cannot change their style, it implies that the situation must change to fit the leader’s style. SLT, on the other hand, emphasizes that leaders must adapt to the readiness of their followers.
Leader-Follower Interaction
Both theories acknowledge that effective leadership involves a dynamic relationship between the leader and their followers. Both assert that leadership is not just about the leader’s behavior but also how followers react to that behavior.
Differences between Fiedler’s Contingency Theory and Situational Leadership Theory
While there are similarities, the differences between the two models are significant, especially in how leadership behavior is determined and adapted.
Leadership Style
Fiedler’s Contingency Theory: Leaders are classified into two fixed categories—task-oriented or relationship-oriented. These styles are relatively fixed and cannot be easily changed.
A leader’s style is determined through the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale, where a leader rates their least preferred coworker. A higher LPC score indicates a relationship-oriented leader, while a lower LPC score suggests a task-oriented leader.
Situational Leadership Theory: In contrast, SLT suggests that a leader can adopt four distinct styles based on the readiness level of the followers: Directing (S1), Coaching (S2), Supporting (S3), and Delegating (S4). Leaders can flexibly adapt their behavior to match the needs of their followers
Example: In Fiedler’s model, if a leader is task-oriented, they will always focus on task completion, regardless of the follower’s needs.
In SLT, however, a task-oriented leader may adopt a coaching style (S2) with a willing but inexperienced follower, but a delegating style (S4) when dealing with highly competent followers.
Leader-Follower Relationship
Fiedler’s Contingency Theory: Fiedler’s model suggests that the relationship between the leader and the follower is just one of the situational factors that determine effectiveness.
The effectiveness of a leader depends on the favorableness of the situation and how well the leader’s style matches that context.
Situational Leadership Theory: In SLT, the leader’s role is much more fluid, focusing on adapting to the follower’s readiness.
The leader’s effectiveness is primarily determined by their ability to adjust their behavior to the needs of the follower, emphasizing the importance of relationship building and constant feedback.
Example: In SLT, a leader may begin by providing clear direction (S1) to a D1 follower who is unsure and lacks motivation. As the follower grows in competence, the leader may shift to a coaching or supporting style (S2 or S3) to foster further growth and confidence.
Follower Readiness vs. Situational Factors
Fiedler’s Contingency Theory: Fiedler’s model focuses on three core situational variables—leader-member relations, task structure, and position power—that determine the favorability of the situation.
The leader’s style must align with these factors for the leadership to be effective.
Situational Leadership Theory: SLT, on the other hand, focuses on follower readiness, which refers to the follower’s competence (ability) and commitment (willingness).
The model assumes that leaders must assess each follower’s readiness and adjust their behavior accordingly.
Example: In Fiedler’s model, a task-oriented leader may be most effective when the team’s task is highly structured (such as in a factory setting with clear instructions).
In SLT, a leader may choose a directing style (S1) for a follower who is new to the task and unwilling to learn but might adopt a more supportive or delegating style once the follower becomes competent.
Read More: Managerial Grid Leadership Theory
Adaptability of Leadership Style
Fiedler’s Contingency Theory: Fiedler’s model argues that a leader’s style is fixed, meaning that a task-oriented leader will continue to focus on tasks regardless of the situation. The situation must change to match the leader’s style.
Situational Leadership Theory: SLT emphasizes leadership flexibility, where leaders are expected to change their style depending on the situation and the readiness of the follower.
It suggests that leaders can be both task-oriented and relationship-oriented depending on the follower’s development.
Example: Fiedler’s model would recommend a task-oriented leader in an emergency (where high control and direction are needed).
In contrast, SLT would recommend that a leader adopt a more supportive or delegating style depending on whether their team members are highly skilled and motivated.
Application in Groups vs. Individuals
Fiedler’s Contingency Theory: Fiedler’s model is more focused on group dynamics and how the leader fits into the overall situation. It doesn’t place as much emphasis on adjusting leadership behavior to individual followers.
Situational Leadership Theory: SLT is more individual-focused, as it emphasizes tailoring leadership styles based on the individual’s development level (readiness). It allows leaders to adapt their approach to meet the specific needs of each team member.
Example: Fiedler’s model would suggest a leader’s style remains the same across the entire team if the group as a whole share similar competence and motivation. SLT would require the leader to assess and adapt to each team member’s unique readiness level.
Read More: Trait Theory of Leadership
Ease of Application
Fiedler’s Contingency Theory: Fiedler’s model can be complex to apply, as it requires leaders to assess situational factors like task structure and position power, which may not always be clear or quantifiable.
Additionally, changing the situation to fit a leader’s style can be challenging.
Situational Leadership Theory: SLT is generally easier to apply in practice since it focuses on adjusting leadership styles based on follower readiness, which can be continuously assessed and adapted in real-time.
Example: A leader using Fiedler’s model might find it difficult to adapt when there are rapidly changing dynamics in a team, whereas a leader using SLT could quickly adjust their style based on an individual follower’s readiness.
Read More: Punctuated Equilibrium Model for Group Development
Conclusion
Both Fiedler’s Contingency Theory and Situational Leadership Theory emphasize the need for leaders to adapt their approach to fit the situation.
However, they do so in distinct ways. Fiedler’s model focuses on fixed leadership styles that must align with situational factors, while SLT advocates for flexible leadership styles that can change based on the follower’s readiness.
The Fiedler model is useful when considering broader group dynamics and structural factors, while SLT is more practical for individual follower development, making it easier for leaders to adjust their approach in real time.
Ultimately, the choice between these theories depends on the leader’s goals and the context in which they are working.
Leaders who aim to develop individual followers and improve performance through continuous adaptation will likely find SLT more effective, while those dealing with fixed or highly structured situations might benefit from Fiedler’s Contingency Theory.
Read Next: Classical Management Theories
Sujan Chaudhary is an MBA graduate. He loves to share his business knowledge with the rest of the world. While not writing, he will be found reading and exploring the world.