When choosing our personal leadership style, we have many different models to choose from, including participative leadership, charismatic leadership, directive leadership, authoritarian leadership, paternalistic leadership, and servant leadership theory.
Each leadership theory promotes a particular approach to running organizations, from involving employees fully in decisions to handing down directives.
By contrast, the contingency theory of leadership argues that rather than adapting their style to the organization, leaders should fill roles based on how well they match the situation.
Let’s take a closer look at the contingency theory of leadership—and why it remains highly relevant to organizations today.
What Is the Contingency Theory of Leadership?
The contingency theory of leadership, developed through research in the 1960s—most notably by psychologist Fred Fiedler and later expanded by other scholars—arose from dissatisfaction with earlier management theories that overlooked situational factors affecting organizations.
These situational factors, or contingencies, include:
-
- Economic conditions
- Availability of skilled labor
Organizational culture
- Laws and regulations
- Technological change
- Global competition and remote work environments
- Environmental and climate-related pressures
In a widely cited 1995 paper, Roya Ayman, Martin M. Chemers, and Fred Fiedler argue that leadership effectiveness depends primarily on:
- Attributes of the leader
- The degree to which the situation gives the leader power, control, and influence
In other words, leadership success depends on both who the leader is and how much control the situation provides.
Claim your FREE copy: Real Leaders Negotiate
If you aspire to be a great leader, not just a boss, start here: Download our FREE Special Report, Real Leaders Negotiate: Understanding the Difference between Leadership and Management, from Harvard Law School.
Task-Oriented vs. Relationship-Oriented Leaders
Contingency theory distinguishes between two broad leadership tendencies.
Task-Oriented Leaders
Task-oriented leaders focus on:
- Completing work efficiently
- Meeting deadlines and performance goals
- Maintaining structure and accountability
They often lean toward directive or authoritative approaches. These leaders typically manage projects well, especially under pressure, but may unintentionally dampen creativity or employee morale if relationships are neglected.
Relationship-Oriented Leaders
Relationship-oriented leaders focus on:
- Building trust and cohesion
- Supporting employee development
- Creating positive workplace culture
Their teams are often motivated and loyal, though work may occasionally drift off schedule or exceed budgets without strong task discipline.
Contingency theory does not claim one style is superior. Instead, it argues that success depends on situational control.
Situational Control: The Core of Contingency Theory
According to Ayman and colleagues, situational control has three components:
- Leader–Member Relations
This refers to:- Team cohesion
- Trust in leadership
- Willingness to follow direction
If group support is weak, leaders must spend time managing conflict rather than solving problems.
- Task Structure
This concerns how clearly tasks are defined.- Highly structured tasks give leaders more control.
- Ambiguous or innovative tasks reduce predictability.
Routine manufacturing tasks differ greatly from launching new products or entering new markets.
- Position Power
Position power is the authority granted by the organization, including:- Hiring and firing authority
- Control over rewards or discipline
- Formal decision-making power
Higher authority increases situational control.
Which Leaders Work Best in Different Situations?
Research suggests:
- Task-oriented leaders perform best when situational control is very high or very low.
- Relationship-oriented leaders perform best when situational control is moderate.
In highly controlled environments, efficiency matters most. In chaotic situations, decisive action is often needed. In between, relationships help stabilize performance.
What Contingencies Matter Most?
In the Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice, Jay Lorsch argues that leadership style forms early in life and is difficult to change dramatically.
Therefore, organizations benefit from selecting leaders who naturally fit their situations.
Key contingencies include:
Followers’ Expectations: Employees vary in how much direction they expect. Teams with high expertise may want autonomy, while others prefer strong guidance.
Organizational Complexity: Large organizations make communication, influence, and visibility more difficult, requiring different leadership skills than small firms.
International and Cultural Differences: Leaders operating globally must navigate cultural differences and remote collaboration challenges that local leaders may never face.
Nature of the Work: Routine, predictable work often benefits from directive leadership, while innovative or uncertain projects benefit from participative leadership.
Why Contingency Theory Still Matters Today
Modern workplaces face rapid change:
- Hybrid and remote work
- AI-driven transformation
- Globalized teams
- Fast-moving markets
Contingency theory reminds us that leadership success depends less on adopting a fashionable leadership model and more on achieving the right fit between leader, team, and context.
Rather than assuming leaders can always adapt, organizations often succeed by placing leaders where their strengths already align with situational needs.
In short, leadership effectiveness is about alignment, not perfection.
Claim your FREE copy: Real Leaders Negotiate
If you aspire to be a great leader, not just a boss, start here: Download our FREE Special Report, Real Leaders Negotiate: Understanding the Difference between Leadership and Management, from Harvard Law School.
