A Look at Contingency, Path-Goal and Leader-Member Exchange Theories of Leadership

     Leadership and being a leader can be categorized by several different styles and theories of leadership.  The relationship/ exchange between leaders and followers (subordinates) play a huge part in the leaders being effective and subordinates being equally effective. 

     This week in class we examined the following leadership theories: Contingency theory, Path-Goal theory and the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory.  Each of these theories offers their own insights and discernment regarding leadership.  Some of the previously mentioned leadership styles and concepts discussed in leadership recur here.  Additionally, these theories lend way to assessments of the roles of both leaders and followers.

     Contingency theory, which is best known as a leader-match theory, tries to link leaders to appropriate situations.  In other words, this theory is primarily focused on styles and situations.  Also, the framework of this theory is centered on task motivated or relationship motivated leadership styles.  Leaders who are task motivated tend to place their interest and focus on reaching a goal and completing the task at hand.  Relationship-motivated leaders on the other hand, tend to focus on forming close interpersonal relationships. The best way to assess and measure leader styles is by using the Least Preferred Coworker Scale that Fiedler developed (1967).  Fiedler’s Contingency model is indicative of the notion that situations can be depicted in relation to three factors: leader-member relations, task structure and position power as shown below. 

  

     The situational variables illustrated above in the contingency model help to determine which situations are favorable in organizations.  According to Northouse (2013), situations that are most favorable are ones that have good leader-follower relations, tasks that are defined and strong leader-position power.  The LPC score is beneficial in predetermining how effective a leader is going to be in certain situations.  Therefore, the contingency theory points out that a leader will not be effective in all situations thrown at them.  This theory provides reasoning for why a leader who may be conscientious and hardworking is ineffective in a particular area of their job.  If you’re curious to see how you would score on the LPC scale feel free to take it yourself.  I’ve provided the questionnaire below. 

     The Path-goal theory focuses on the role that leaders play in motivating followers (subordinates) to accomplish tasks.  This theory differs from contingency theory because it places emphasis on the relationship of the leader’s style and how this characterizes subordinates and the work environment.  In other words, this theory gives leaders the challenge of selecting/tailoring their leadership style to one that will best serve the motivational needs of subordinates.  I particularly like this theory because it is fully indicative of just how effective a subordinate can be with the right amount of guidance and motivation.  In the structure of organizations there are employees that can be better than they ever thought if managed correctly.   From a personal standpoint, if my manager/supervisor can clearly define the goals and provide me with the support needed to get my job done, this motivates me to not only get the job done, but to seek out other tasks that I can assist with.   The leader behaviors visible here are: directive, supportive, participative and achievement-oriented.  Yet, this theory leaves itself completely open to other variables and behaviors too.  The diagram to the right provides an illustration of the major components of path-goal theory. Similar to the contingency theory, path-goal theory also lends itself to a questionnaire that can be very instrumental in measuring the styles of leaders.  You can assess this questionnaire at: http://www.slideshare.net/LeanaPolstonMurdoch/path-goal-questionnaire.  

     The third and final theory that my class discussed this week is the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory.  This theory takes a different approach to leadership.  Instead of examining it from the viewpoint of the leader or the follower and the environment, it examines it based on the interactions between leaders and followers.  In other words, this theory assesses the relationship that an employee has with their manager and vice versa.  Secondly, this theory puts followers in one of two categories: in-group or out-group, based on how well they work in conjunction with their leader.   Those subordinates who become a part of the in-group go over and beyond their job duties require of them.  If a subordinate shows lack of concern for taking on more and different job responsibilities, then they become a part of the out-group.  The in-group receives more influence and more confidence is exuded to them by their leader.   The response that out-group members receive from their leader is equivalent to that of just the standard benefits of their job duties, nothing more.   Of the theories discussed thus far, this one is the only one that fully assesses the dyadic relationship amidst leaders and followers.  

     Perhaps a general way to look at this theory is as followed:  If a leader and an employee have a great working relationship and said employee exudes potential and not only does what is required of them, but that and more, when a better position becomes available, that leader will inevitably look out for them.   If a leader and an employee have an okay working relationship and the employee comes to work daily, does the job, does not interact with the leader or fellow employees and frowns whenever asked to anything out the norm,  when a promotion comes alone, the leader may not even consider them.   As somewhat childish as the last scenario sounds, this is an all too familiar scene in most organizations.   It should be noted that just because the leader does not consider the second employee does not mean the leader does not like them, it just means the relationships between each employee is different.  Furthermore, research on LMX theory stresses that leaders should put forth an effort in developing high-quality exchanges with all of their subordinates (Northouse, 2013).  More so, these exchanges develop over time and involves a stranger phase, an acquaintance phase and a mature partnership stage.  As employees, accomplish new responsibilities, they move through these stages and in return form a better working relationship with their leaders.   This theory utilizes a questionnaire, referred to as LMX 7 to measure the respect, trust and obligation that leaders and followers have for one another.  You can assess this questionnaire at http://www.sagepub.com/northouse6e/study/materials/Questionnaires/03409_08lq.pdf and you can see where you and your current leader stand.  

Reference: Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice. (6 ed). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publishing.