2.3 Leadership approaches and styles: The situational (contingency) approach
It is possible to see how leadership styles and approaches to leadership can relate. IN the previous chapter we examined how to define an effective transformational leader. One of the approaches used to define and study leadership is the situational or contingency approach. While distinct approaches they both can be linked as they emphasise the distinctive characteristics of the leader could not be divorced from their situation, and the characteristics of the leader and their subordinates. Situational approaches focus on current contexts while the contingency approach suggests leadership also has to consider and indeed influence future situations. In leading for situations or contingencies sensitivity to leadership style is vital.
Edwin Hollander was one of the original writers on situational leadership. He reviewed leadership theories and noted that:
It is in the nature of situational requirements that they call forth certain expectations for leadership, and these may be fulfilled by various individuals in the situation. (1964: 5)
Fundamentally, a person could be a follower and a leader. This could vary depending on the distinctive characteristics to the situation and setting (Hoy & Miskel, 1987:273). As situations vary and human characteristics vary so must our understanding of leadership effectiveness.
The Situational Approach reinforces the fact humans have needs and these will vary across geography, culture, contexts, size of companies and so on. These needs impact choices and how leaders make decisions. Many authors tie the study of leadership to how leaders consider humans in situations and contexts.
At the pinnacle of the Maslow, hierarchy, the concept of the self-actualised person underpinned the belief self-awareness, self-knowledge and mutual respect, democracy and participation in decision making were essential elements when seeking to build an effective organisation (McGregor:1960).
Frederick Herzberg (1960) enunciated his Motivation-Hygiene Theory on the premise that five (motivational) factors stand out as strong determiners of job satisfaction - achievement; recognition; work itself; responsibility; and advancement. He went on to postulate that five different (hygiene) factors stand out as strong determiners of job dissatisfaction - company policy and administration; supervision; salary; interpersonal relations; and working conditions. That is, the opposite of job satisfaction would not be job dissatisfaction but rather no job satisfaction; and the opposite of job dissatisfaction would not be job satisfaction but rather very little job satisfaction. While focussing on management the message reinforces that a leader who is able to develop the determiners of job satisfaction (the motivators) would be more effective than a leader/ manager who worked on eliminating the five determiners (hygienes) of job dissatisfaction. Herzberg concluded:
If we accept the notion that one of the most important functions of a manager is the development of future managers, the teaching of hygiene motivations becomes a serious defect to the company... The superior who is a hygiene seeker cannot but have an adverse effect on management development, which is aimed at the personal growth and actualisation of subordinates. (Herzberg, 1960:91)