Editing Leadership (section)

===Situational and contingency theories===
{{Main|Fiedler contingency model|Vroom–Yetton decision model|path–goal theory|Substitutes for Leadership Theory}}

Situational theory is another reaction to the trait theory of leadership. [[social science|Social scientists]] argued that history was more than the result of intervention of [[Great man theory|great men]] as [[Thomas Carlyle|Carlyle]] suggested. [[Herbert Spencer]] (1884) (and [[Karl Marx]]) said that the times produce the person and not the other way around.<ref>{{multiref2
|1= {{cite book |last=Spencer |first=Herbert |author-link=Herbert Spencer |title=The Study of Sociology |year=1841|location=New York|publisher=D.A. Appleton |isbn=978-0-314-71117-5}}
|2= {{cite book |last=Heifetz|first=Ronald |author-link=Ronald A. Heifetz |title=Leadership without Easy Answers |year=1994 |publisher=Harvard University Press |location=[[Cambridge, Massachusetts]] |isbn=978-0-674-51858-2 |page=16 |url-access=registration |url = https://archive.org/details/leadershipwithou00heif}} }}</ref> This theory assumes that different situations call for different characteristics: no single optimal psychographic profile of a leader exists. According to the theory, "what an individual actually does when acting as a leader is in large part dependent upon characteristics of the situation in which he functions."<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hemphill |first1 = John K. |title=Situational Factors in Leadership |year=1949 |publisher=Ohio State University Bureau of Educational Research |location=Columbus}}</ref>

Some theorists synthesized the trait and situational approaches. Building upon the research of Lewin et al.,<ref>{{cite journal |last1 = Lewin |first1 = Kurt |author1-link = Kurt Lewin |last2 = Lippitt |first2 = Ronald |last3 = White | first3 = Ralph | title = Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates |journal = [[The Journal of Social Psychology]] |pages = 271–301 |year = 1939}}</ref> academics normalized the descriptive models of leadership climates, defining three leadership styles and identifying which situations each style works better in. The authoritarian leadership style, for example, is approved in periods of crisis but fails to win the "hearts and minds" of followers in day-to-day management; the democratic leadership style is more adequate in situations that require consensus building; finally, the laissez-faire leadership style is appreciated for the degree of freedom it provides, but as the leaders do not "take charge", they can be perceived as a failure in protracted or thorny organizational problems.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Van Wormer |first1=Katherine S. |last2=Besthorn |first2=Fred H. |last3=Keefe |first3= Thomas |title=Human Behavior and the Social Environment: Macro Level: Groups, Communities, and Organizations |year=2007|location=US|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-518754-0|page=198}}</ref> Theorists defined the style of leadership as contingent to the situation; this is sometimes called [[contingency theory]]. Three contingency leadership theories are the Fiedler contingency model, the Vroom-Yetton decision model, and the path-goal theory.

The [[Fiedler contingency model]] bases the leader's effectiveness on what [[Fred Fiedler]] called ''situational contingency''. This results from the interaction of leadership style and situational favorability (later called ''situational control''). The theory defines two types of leader: those who tend to accomplish the task by developing good relationships with the group (relationship-oriented), and those who have as their prime concern carrying out the task itself (task-oriented).<ref>{{cite book |last = Fiedler |first = Fred E. |author-link = Fred Fiedler |title = A theory of leadership effectiveness |publisher = Harper and Row Publishers Inc. |year = 1967 |location = McGraw-Hill}}</ref> According to Fiedler, there is no ideal leader. Both task-oriented and relationship-oriented leaders can be effective if their leadership orientation fits the situation. When there is a good leader-member relation, a highly structured task, and high leader position power, the situation is considered a "favorable situation". Fiedler found that task-oriented leaders are more effective in extremely favorable or unfavorable situations, whereas relationship-oriented leaders perform best in situations with intermediate favorability.

[[Victor Vroom]], in collaboration with Phillip Yetton<ref>{{cite book |last1=Vroom|first1=Victor H.|author-link1=Victor Vroom|last2=Yetton|first2=Phillip W.|title=Leadership and Decision-Making| year=1973|location=Pittsburgh|publisher=University of Pittsburgh Press |isbn=978-0-8229-3266-6}}</ref> and later with Arthur Jago,<ref>{{cite book|last1=Vroom|first1=Victor H. |author1-link = Victor Vroom |last2=Jago|first2=Arthur G. |title=The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations|year=1988|location=Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey |publisher=Prentice-Hall|isbn=978-0-13-615030-5|url-access=registration |url = https://archive.org/details/newleadershipman0000vroo }}</ref> developed a [[Taxonomy (general)|taxonomy]] for describing leadership situations. They used this in a normative [[Vroom-Yetton decision model|decision model]] in which leadership styles were connected to situational variables, defining which approach was more suitable to which situation.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Theoretical Letters: The person versus the situation in leadership |first1=Victor H. |last1=Vroom |author1-link = Victor Vroom |last2=Sternberg|first2=Robert J. |journal=[[Leadership (journal)|Leadership]]|volume= 13 |pages=301–323|year=2002 |doi=10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00101-7 |issue=3}}</ref> This approach supported the idea that a manager could rely on different [[group decision making]] approaches depending on the attributes of each situation. This model was later referred to as situational contingency theory.<ref>{{cite journal|author-link=Jay W. Lorsch|last=Lorsch|first=J.W.|date=Spring 1974|title=Book Review: ''Leadership and Decision Making'' by Vroom & Yetton|journal=[[MIT Sloan Management Review]]|volume=15|number=3|page=100}}</ref>

The [[path-goal theory]] of leadership was developed by Robert House and was based on the [[expectancy theory]] of [[Victor Vroom]].<ref>{{cite journal | last = House| first = Robert J. | title = A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness | journal = [[Administrative Science Quarterly]] |volume=16 | pages = 321–339 | year = 1971 | doi = 10.2307/2391905 | issue = 3 | jstor = 2391905}}</ref> According to House, "leaders, to be effective, engage in behaviors that complement subordinates' environments and abilities in a manner that compensates for deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction and individual and work unit performance".<ref>{{cite journal | last = House| first = Robert J.| title = Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory | journal = [[Leadership (journal)|Leadership Quarterly]]|volume=7 |issue=3 | pages = 323–352 | year = 1996 | doi = 10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7 }}</ref> The theory identifies four leader behaviors, ''achievement-oriented'', ''directive'', ''participative'', and ''supportive'', that are contingent to environment factors and follower characteristics. In contrast to the [[Fiedler contingency model]], the path-goal model states that the four leadership behaviors are fluid, and that leaders can adopt any of the four depending on what the situation demands. The path-goal model can be classified both as a [[Contingency leadership theory|contingency theory]], as it depends on the circumstances, and as a [[Transactional leadership|transactional leadership theory]], as the theory emphasizes the reciprocity behavior between the leader and the followers.