Share this page
Fielder's Contingency Model
Contingency model of leadership, as outlined by Fred Fiedler.
Fielder's Contingency Model
Table of contents
Contingency Model 
Fred Fiedler's Contingency Model was the third notable situational model of leadership to emerge. This model appeared first in Fiedler's 1967 book, A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness.
The essence of Fiedler's theory is that a leader's effectiveness depends on a combination of two forces:
- the leader's leadership style, and
- 'situational favourableness'.
Fiedler called this combination (of leadership style and 'situational favourableness'): Situational Contingency.
Fiedler described two basic leadership styles - task-orientated and relationship-orientated:
Fiedler said neither style is inherently superior. However, he asserted that certain leadership challenges suit one style or the other better. The diagram below illustrates this point.
Fiedler defined three factors determining the favourableness of the situation:
•How precisely the task is defined and how much creative freedom the leader gives to the followers.
Fiedler believed the situation is favourable when:
The situation is unfavourable if the opposite is true on all three points.
most effective orientation (style)
Fiedler said that task-orientated leaders are most effective when facing a situation that is either extremely favourable or extremely unfavourable. In other words:
- when there is enormous trust, respect and confidence,
- when the task is very clear, and
- when followers accept the leader's power without question,
and also when the opposite is true, i.e. -
- when trust and respect do not exist,
- when the challenge people face is vague and undefined, and
- when the atmosphere is anarchic or even rebellious (for example, an emergency or crisis)
Fiedler concluded that relationship-orientated leaders are most effective in less extreme circumstances. That is, in situations that are neither favourable or unfavourable, or situations that are only moderately favourable or moderately unfavourable.
Fiedler's theory took a significant and firm view about personality: He said that a leader's style reflected his or her personality, (which incidentally he assessed in his research using a psychometric instrument).
Fiedler's view about personality - and indeed the common notion of the times - was that individual personality is fixed and does not change during a leader's life/career. Consequently Fiedler's theory placed great emphasis on 'matching' leaders to situations, according to the perceived style of the leader and the situation faced (by the organization).
Fiedler's Contingency Model is therefore a somewhat limited model for effective leadership. Notably it's not a useful guide for helping people become better leaders; nor is it an efficient or necessarily flexible model for modern leadership in organizations, given the dynamic variety of situations which nowadays arise.
A further implication of Fiedler's theory is potentially to require the replacement of leaders whose styles do not match situations, which from several viewpoints (legal, practical, ethical, etc) would be simply unworkable in modern organizations.
Nevertheless, despite its limitations, Fiedler's theory was an important contribution to leadership thinking, especially in reinforcing the now generally accepted views that:
- There is no single ideal way of behaving as a leader, and
- Matching leadership behaviour (or style) to circumstances (or situations) - or vice-versa - is significant in effective leadership.
And as already suggested, Fiedler's theory also encourages us to consider the leader's personality and the leader's behaviour from these angles:
- the extent to which (a leader's) personality is fixed, and
- the extent to which (a leader's) personality controls (a leader's) behaviour.
Clearly, if a model such as this is to be of great value, then these questions need to be clarified rather more than they have been to date, which is not easy given the complexity of human nature.
We are left to conclude somewhat conditionally, that if personality is fixed (which generally it is) and personality controls behaviour, (which generally it seems to) then..
the notion of:
- 'matching behaviour to the circumstances'
probably equates unavoidably to:
- 'matching the person to the circumstances',
which is usually not a viable approach to leadership and leadership development within modern organizations.
We live in an increasingly virtual world which allows lots of inter-changeability (like 'matrix management' for example - where followers may have two different bosses for two different sets of responsibilities, such as local markets vs international markets), but most indications are that frequently changing leaders in order to match fixed leadership behaviours to corresponding and suitable situations is less efficient and effective than organizations having leaders who can adapt freely outside of, and despite, individual personality constraints.