Using contingency model to reposition company when it goes adrift
https://ilokabenneth.blogspot.com/2014/10/using-contingency-model-to-reposition.html
Author: Iloka Benneth Chiemelie
Published: 15-October-2014
Introduction
Modern
organizations are faced with high challenges as a result of the fast-paced
business world that is influenced by high-tech, information-based competitive
environment. Thus, it is necessary to always have a second plan in terms of how
to react when business goals are not moving in the desired directions. This is
where contingency model comes in as a counter-attack or reverse-effect model
that repositions businesses when they are adrift set goals.
2.
Key
contingency factors
2.1.
Follower development – the development process encompasses
both present level of follower competence and future enhancement of these
competence to meet desired results. In some cases, short-term efficiency is
viewed as more important that long-term follower development. Take for instance
an organization that recruits employees on short-term bases in order to
complete specific jobs; such organizations will be more likely focused on
short-term efficiency instead of long-term follower development. In such case,
the best approach to leadership is directive or transactional as it will help
to elicit short-term follower compliance (Manz &
Sims, 2001). From an opposite view, a transformational approach is
necessary when a leader wishes to enhance followers’ capabilities on the long
term (Manz & Sims, 2001). Overall. Follower
development deals with keeping employees equipped with the right skills to
perform designated jobs (be it in the short-term or long-term).
2.2.
Situational urgency – in the time of crisis, the firm might
have enough time to develop self-leadership capabilities in the followers or
create some form of reward contingencies. In times of high urgency, the more
appropriate approaches to leadership is a transformation or highly directive
approach (e.g., Conger, 1999; Manz & Sims, 2001).
For instance, in the course of fire disaster, different people are given
different tasks geared towards the goal of extinguishing the fire and rescuing
people. Research have found that creating a sense of helplessness and low
self-esteem can help booster transformational leadership in followers (e.g., Bass, 1985; Bryman, 1992; Cell, 1974; Weber, 1947)
as they become more willing to change.
2.3.
Task environment – this is the extent at which the task
environment a follower is working in is structured or unstructured. Structured
task environment features clearly specific routine and simple process that
brings about low level of uncertainty and little discretion of behavior. On the
other hand, an unstructured environment features high level of uncertainty and huge
behavioral discretion. Thus, transformational leadership is the best for
structured work environment while unstructured work environment goes more with
transactional leadership.
3.
Relationship
between key contingency factors and leadership outcomes
Follower
commitment – a number of theorist in the field of leadership have come to
conclude that directive and transformational leadership style will influence
follower commitment in terms of behavioral compliance while transformational
approach to leadership will produce affective commitment (e.g., Bennis & Nannus, 1985; Conger, 1999; Manz &
Sims, 1991, 2001; Sims & Manz, 1996). For instance, when a leader is
more focused towards the growth of the staffs, the staffs will be more
affectionate with the company and willing to do more to improve overall
performance of the company; while a leader who is focused on returns will see
his/her staffs attitudes changed only towards increased sales but not they are
not loyal to the company.
3.1.
Follower dependence – researches have it that directive,
transactional and transformational leadership styles can bring about followers
that are largely dependent on the leader and the company, while empowering
style will likely result in followers that are largely independent (e.g., Manz & Sims, 2001; Sims & Manz, 1996).
For instance, when employees are obliged to deliver certain sales
(transactional) they will depend on the company for resources such as delivery
van, distribution networks etc. but when they are allowed to bring about
unidirectional outcomes such as good corporate image and innovation
(empowering), they will depend more on their instincts.
3.2.
Follower creativity and innovation – directive and
transactional leadership style has been linked to low level of creativity and
organizational innovation (Manz & Sims, 2001)
while high level of individual creativity and organizational innovation has
been linked to empowering approach to leadership (Manz & Sims, 2001). For
instance, when employees are allowed to explore their potentials without any
boundary (empowering) they tend to bring in new ideas (creativity) which will
be used to enhance quality of the company’s products and/or services
(innovation).
3.3.
Psychological empowerment – directional and transactional
forms of leadership have been found to bring about low levels of empowerment
among followers, while empowering style tends to enhance levels of empowerment
among follower (Manz & Sims, 2001).
4.
Conclusion
In
their study, Jeffery ad Steven (2005) has been successful to demonstrate that
different aspects of leadership styles influences leadership outcomes. For
instance, transactional leaderships makes employees less innovative, less
committed but more capable of returning investments on the short-term while
transformational leaderships brings about increased commitment but less capable
of returning investments in the short-term.
In
this week’s lectures, a number of leadership approaches have been discussed and
they are: transactional, transformational, directional, and empowering. In
order to create sustainable production through effective leadership,
literatures have made known that such approaches should be aligned with the
objectives of the company s (e.g., Cox & Sims,
1996; Cox et al., 2003; Liu, Lepak, Takeuchi, & Sims, 2003; Pearce &
Sims, 2000, 2002; Perry, Pearce, and Sims, 1999). For instance, if a
company wishes to return investments on the short-term, the company will have
to adopt transactional and directional leadership but a goal of ensue
sustainability in human capital will be best achieved with transformational and
empowering leadership. This week’s article have been able to prove such by
documenting a number of findings in terms of how leadership style can bring
about sustainability when applied in the right direction as demonstrated in relationship
between key contingency factors and leadership outcomes.
5.
References
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance
beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders. New
York: Harper & Row.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership. London:
Sage
Cell, C. P. (1974). Charismatic heads of state: The
social context. Behavioral Science Research, 4, 255-305.
Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and
transformational leadership in organizations: An insider’s perspective on these
developing streams of research. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 145-170.
Cox, J. F., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1996).
Leadership and team citizenship behavior: A model and measures. In M.
Beyerlein, D. Johnson, & S. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary
studies of work teams: Team leadership (pp. 1- 41). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Cox, J. F., Pearce, C. L., & Perry, M. L.
(2003). Toward a model of shared leadership and distributed influence in the
innovation process: How shared leadership can enhance new product development,
team dynamics and effectiveness. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.),
Shared Leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp.48-76).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Houghton, J.D., & Yoho, S.K. (2005) ‘Toward a
Contingency Model of Leadership and Psychological Empowerment: When Should
Self-Leadership Be Encouraged?’, Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 11 (4), pp. 65–83, Sage Journals [Online]. DOI:
10.1177/107179190501100406 (Accessed: 3 August 2009).
Liu, W., Lepak, D. P., Takeuchi, R., & Sims, H.
P., Jr. (2003). Matching leadership styles with employment modes: Strategic
human resource management perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 13,
127-152.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1991).
Superleadership: Beyond the myth of heroic leadership. Organizational Dynamics,
19, 18-35.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2001). The new
SuperLeadership: Leading others to lead themselves. San Francisco,
Berrett-Koehler.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2002).
Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change
management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional,
transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory
Research and Practice, 6, 172-197.
Perry, M. L., Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr.
(1999). Empowered selling teams: How shared leadership can contribute to
selling team outcomes. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19,
35-51.
Sims, H. P., Jr., & Manz, C. C. (1996). Company
of heroes: Unleashing the power of self-leadership. New York: Wiley.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic
organization. (Talcott Parsons, Translated). New York: Free Press.