Leadership stylesUsing the right one for your situation

From Mahatma Gandhi to Winston Churchill to Martin Luther King to Rudolph Giuliani, there are as many leadership styles as there are leaders. Fortunately, businesspeople and psychologists have developed useful and simple ways to describe the main styles of leadership, and these can help aspiring leaders understand which styles they should use.

So, whether you manage a team at work, captain a sports team, or lead a major corporation, which approach is best? Consciously, or subconsciously, you'll probably use some of the leadership styles in this article at some point. Understanding these styles and their impact can help you develop your own, personal leadership style – and help you become a more effective leader.

With this in mind, there are many different frameworks that have shaped our current understanding of leadership, and many of these have their place, just as long as they're used appropriately. This article looks at some of the most common frameworks, and then looks at popular styles of leadership.

Leadership Theories

Researchers have developed a number of leadership theories over the years. These can be categorized into four main types:

1. Trait theories – What type of person makes a good leader?

Trait theories argue that leaders share a number of common personality traits and characteristics, and that leadership emerges from these traits. Early trait theories promoted the idea that leadership is an innate, instinctive quality that you either have or don't have. Thankfully, we've moved on from this approach, and we're learning more about what we can do as individuals to develop leadership qualities within ourselves and others.

What's more, traits are external behaviors that emerge from things going on within the leader's mind – and it's these internal beliefs and processes that are important for effective leadership.

Trait theory does, however, help us identify some qualities that are helpful when leading others and, together, these emerge as a generalized leadership style. Examples include empathy, assertiveness, good decision-making, and likability. In our article Building Tomorrow's Leaders, we discuss a series of attributes that are important for all types of leaders to develop. However,

none of these traits, nor any combination of them, will guarantee success as a leader. You need more than that.

2. Behavioral theories – What does a good leader do?

Behavioral theories focus on how leaders behave. Do they dictate what needs to be done and expect cooperation? Or do they involve the team in decisions to encourage acceptance and support?

In the 1930s, Kurt Lewin developed a leadership framework based on a leader's decision-making behavior. Lewin argued that there are three types of leaders:

a. Autocratic leaders make decisions without consulting their teams. This is considered appropriate when decisions genuinely need to be taken quickly, when there's no need for input, and when team agreement isn't necessary for a successful outcome.

b. Democratic leaders allow the team to provide input before making a decision, although the degree of input can vary from leader to leader. This type of style is important when team agreement matters, but it can be quite difficult to manage when there are lots of different perspectives and ideas.

c. Laissez-faire leaders don't interfere; they allow the team to make many of the decisions. Typically this happens when the team is highly capable and motivated, and it doesn't need close monitoring or supervision.

Similar to Lewin's model, the Blake-Mouton Managerial Grid helps you decide how best to lead, depending on your concern for people versus your concern for production. The model describes five different leadership styles: impoverished, country club, team leader, produce or perish, or middle of the road. The descriptions of these will help you understand your own leadership habits and adapt them to meet your team's needs.

John Adair's Action-Centered Leadership model is another framework that's consistent with behavioral theories of leadership. Using this model, the "best" leadership style is determined by balancing task, team, and individual responsibilities. Leaders who spend time managing each of these elements will likely be more successful than those who focus mostly on only one element.

Clearly, then, how leaders behave impacts on their effectiveness. Researchers have realized, though, that many of these leadership behaviors are appropriate at different times. So, the best leaders are those who can use many different behavioral styles and use the right style for each situation.

3. Contingency theories – How does the situation influence good leadership?

The realization that there isn't one correct type of leader led to theories that the best leadership style is contingent on, or depends on, the situation. These theories try to predict which leadership style is best in which circumstance.

When a decision is needed fast, which style is preferred? When the leader needs the full support of the team, is there a better way to lead? Should a leader be more people oriented or task oriented? These are all examples of questions that contingency leadership theories try to address.

A popular contingency-based framework is the Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory, which links leadership style with the maturity of individual members of the leader's team. Other contingency-based models include House's Path-Goal Theory, and Fiedler's Contingency Model.

4. Power and influence theories – What is the source of the leader's power?

These theories of leadership take an entirely different approach. They're based on the different ways in which leaders use power and influence to get things done, and the leadership styles that emerge as a result. Perhaps the most well known of these theories is French and Raven's Five Forms of Power. This model distinguishes between using your position to exert power, and using your personal attributes to be powerful.

French and Raven identified three types of positional power – legitimate, reward, and coercive – and two sources of personal power – expert and referent (your personal appeal and charm). The model suggests that using personal power is the better alternative and, because Expert Power (the power that comes with being a real expert in the job) is the most legitimate of these, that you should actively work on building this. Similarly, leading by example is another highly effective way to establish and sustain a positive influence with your team.

Another valid leadership style that's supported by power and influence theories is Transactional Leadership. This approach assumes that work is done only because it is rewarded, and for no other reason, and it therefore focuses on designing tasks and reward structures. While it may not be the most appealing leadership strategy in terms of building relationships and developing a long-term motivating work environment, it does work, and it's used in most organizations on a daily basis to get things done.

An Up-to-Date Understanding of Leadership

Within all of these theories, frameworks, and approaches to leadership, there's an underlying message that leaders need to have a variety of factors working in their favor. Effective leadership is not simply based on a set of attributes, behaviors, or influences. You must have a wide range of abilities and approaches that you can draw upon.

Having said this, however, there's one leadership style that is appropriate in very many corporate situations – that of Transformational Leadership. A leader using this style:

Has integrity. Sets clear goals. Clearly communicates a vision. Sets a good example. Expects the best from the team. Encourages.

Supports. Recognizes good work and people. Provides stimulating work. Helps people see beyond their self-interests and focus more on team interests and needs. Inspires.

In short, transformational leaders are exceptionally motivating, and they're trusted. When your team trusts you, and is really "fired up" by the way you lead, you can achieve great things!

The transformational leadership style is the dominant leadership style taught in our How to Lead: Discover the Leader Within You program, although we do recommend that other styles are brought in as the situation demands.

Having said that Transformational Leadership suits very many circumstances in business, we need to remember that there may be situations where it's not the best style. This is why it's worth knowing about the other styles shown below so that you have a greater chance of finding the right combination for the situation you find yourself in.

Popular Leadership Styles – A Glossary

The leadership theories and styles discussed so far are based on research. However, many more terms are used to describe approaches to leadership, even if these don't fit within a particular theoretical system. It's worth understanding these!

1. Autocratic leadership

Autocratic leadership is an extreme form of transactional leadership, where leaders have absolute power over their workers or team. Staff and team members have little opportunity to make suggestions, even if these would be in the team's or the organization's best interest.

Most people tend to resent being treated like this. Therefore, autocratic leadership usually leads to high levels of absenteeism and staff turnover. For some routine and unskilled jobs, the style can remain effective because the advantages of control may outweigh the disadvantages.

2. Bureaucratic leadership

Bureaucratic leaders work "by the book." They follow rules rigorously, and ensure that their staff follows procedures precisely. This is a very appropriate style for work involving serious safety risks (such as working with machinery, with toxic substances, or at dangerous heights) or where large sums of money are involved (such as handling cash).

3. Charismatic leadership

A charismatic leadership style can seem similar to transformational leadership, because these leaders inspire lots of enthusiasm in their teams and are very energetic in driving others forward. However, charismatic leaders can tend to believe more in themselves than in their teams, and this creates a risk that a project, or even an entire organization, might collapse if the leader leaves. In the eyes of the followers, success is directly connected to the presence of the charismatic leader. As such, charismatic leadership carries great responsibility, and it needs a long-term commitment from the leader.

4. Democratic leadership or participative leadership

Although democratic leaders make the final decisions, they invite other members of the team to contribute to the decision-making process. This not only increases job satisfaction by involving team members, but it also helps to develop people's skills. Team members feel in control of their own destiny, so they're motivated to work hard by more than just a financial reward.

Because participation takes time, this approach can take more time, but often the end result is better. The approach can be most suitable when working as a team is essential, and when quality is more important than speed to market or productivity.

5. Laissez-faire leadership

This French phrase means "leave it be," and it's used to describe leaders who leave their team members to work on their own. It can be effective if the leader monitors what's being achieved and communicates this back to the team regularly. Most often, laissez-faire leadership is effective when individual team members are very experienced and skilled self-starters. Unfortunately, this type of leadership can also occur when managers don't apply sufficient control.

6. People-oriented leadership or relations-oriented leadership

This is the opposite of task-oriented leadership. With people-oriented leadership, leaders are totally focused on organizing, supporting, and developing the people in their teams. It's a participative style, and it tends to encourage good teamwork and creative collaboration.

In practice, most leaders use both task-oriented and people-oriented styles of leadership.

7. Servant leadership

This term, created by Robert Greenleaf in the 1970s, describes a leader who is often not formally recognized as such. When someone, at any level within an organization, leads simply by meeting the needs of the team, he or she is described as a "servant leader."

In many ways, servant leadership is a form of democratic leadership, because the whole team tends to be involved in decision making.

Supporters of the servant leadership model suggest that it's an important way to move ahead in a world where values are increasingly important, and where servant leaders achieve power on the basis of their values and ideals. Others believe that in competitive leadership situations, people who practice servant leadership can find themselves left behind by leaders using other leadership styles.

8. Task-Oriented leadership

Highly task-oriented leaders focus only on getting the job done, and they can be quite autocratic. They actively define the work and the roles required, put structures in place, plan, organize, and monitor. However, because task-oriented leaders don't tend to think much about the well-being of their teams, this approach can suffer many of the flaws of autocratic leadership, with difficulties in motivating and retaining staff.

9. Transactional leadership

This style of leadership starts with the idea that team members agree to obey their leader totally when they accept a job. The "transaction" is usually the organization paying the team members in return for their effort and compliance. The leader has a right to "punish" team members if their work doesn't meet the pre-determined standard.

Team members can do little to improve their job satisfaction under transactional leadership. The leader could give team members some control of their income/reward by using incentives that encourage even higher standards or greater productivity. Alternatively, a transactional leader could practice "management by exception" – rather than rewarding better work, the leader could take corrective action if the required standards are not met.

Transactional leadership is really a type of management, not a true leadership style, because the focus is on short-term tasks. It has serious limitations for knowledge-based or creative work.

10. Transformational leadership

As we discussed earlier, people with this leadership style are true leaders who inspire their teams constantly with a shared vision of the future. While this leader's enthusiasm is often passed onto the team, he or she can need to be supported by "detail people." That's why, in many organizations, both transactional and transformational leadership are needed. The transactional leaders (or managers) ensure that routine work is done reliably, while the transformational leaders look after initiatives that add value.

Key Points

While the transformational leadership approach is often highly effective, there's no one "right" way to lead or manage that fits all situations. To choose the most effective approach for yourself, consider the following:

The skill levels and experience of your team.

The work involved (routine, or new and creative). The organizational environment (stable or radically changing, conservative or

adventurous). You own preferred or natural style.

Good leaders often switch instinctively between styles, according to the people they lead and the work that needs to be done. Establish trust – that's key to this process – and remember to balance the needs of the organization against the needs of your team

Source: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_84.htm

Blake Mouton Managerial GridBalancing Task- and People-Oriented Leadership

When your boss puts you in charge of organizing the company Christmas party, what do you do first? Do you develop a time line and start assigning tasks or do you think about who would prefer to do what and try to schedule around their needs? When the planning starts to fall behind schedule, what is your first reaction? Do you chase everyone to get back on track, or do you ease off a bit recognizing that everyone is busy just doing his/her job, let alone the extra tasks you've assigned?

Your answers to these types of questions can reveal a great deal about your personal leadership style.

Some leaders are very task-oriented; they simply want to get things done. Others are very people-oriented; they want people to be happy. And others are a combination of the two. If you prefer to lead by setting and enforcing tight schedules, you tend to be more production-oriented (or task-oriented). If you make people your priority and try to accommodate employee needs, then you're more people-oriented.

Neither preference is right or wrong, just as no one type of leadership style is best for all situations. However, it's useful to understand what your natural leadership tendencies are, so that you can then begin working on developing skills that you may be missing.

A popular framework for thinking about a leader's 'task versus person' orientation was developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in the early 1960s. Called the Managerial Grid, or Leadership Grid, it plots the degree of task-centeredness versus person-centeredness and identifies five combinations as distinct leadership styles.

Understanding the Model

The Managerial Grid is based on two behavioral dimensions:

Concern for People - This is the degree to which a leader considers the needs of team members, their interests, and areas of personal development when deciding how best to accomplish a task

Concern for Production - This is the degree to which a leader emphasizes concrete objectives, organizational efficiency and high productivity when deciding how best to accomplish a task.

Using the axis to plot leadership 'concerns for production' versus 'concerns for people', Blake and Mouton defined the following five leadership styles:

Country Club Leadership - High People/Low ProductionThis style of leader is most concerned about the needs and feelings of members of his/her team. These people operate under the assumption that as long as team members are happy and secure then they will work hard. What tends to result is a work environment that is very relaxed and fun but where production suffers due to lack of direction and control.

Produce or Perish Leadership - High Production/Low PeopleAlso known as Authoritarian or Compliance Leaders, people in this category believe that employees are simply a means to an end. Employee needs are always secondary to the need for efficient and productive workplaces. This type of leader is very autocratic, has strict work rules, policies, and procedures, and views punishment as the most effective means to motivate employees. (See also our article on Theory X/Theory Y.)

Impoverished Leadership - Low Production/ Low PeopleThis leader is mostly ineffective. He/she has neither a high regard for creating systems for getting the job done, nor for creating a work environment that is satisfying and motivating. The result is a place of disorganization, dissatisfaction and disharmony.

Middle-of-the-Road Leadership - Medium Production/Medium PeopleThis style seems to be a balance of the two competing concerns. It may at first appear to be an ideal compromise. Therein lies the problem, though: When you compromise, you necessarily give away a bit of each concern so that neither production nor people needs are fully met. Leaders who use this style settle for average performance and often believe that this is the most anyone can expect.

Team Leadership - High Production/High PeopleAccording to the Blake Mouton model, this is the pinnacle of managerial style. These leaders stress production needs and the needs of the people equally highly. The premise here is that employees are involved in understanding organizational purpose and determining production needs. When employees are committed to, and have a stake in the organization's success, their needs and production needs coincide. This creates a team environment based on trust and respect, which leads to high satisfaction and motivation and, as a result, high production. (See also our article on Theory Y.)

Applying the Blake Mouton Managerial Grid

Being aware of the various approaches is the first step in understanding and improving how well you perform as a manager. It is important to understand how you currently operate, so that you can then identify ways of becoming competent in both realms.

Step One: Identify your leadership style.

Think of some recent situations where you were the leader. For each of these situations, place yourself in the grid according to where you believe you fit.

Step Two: Identify areas of improvement and develop your leadership skills

Look at your current leadership method and critically analyze its effectiveness. Look at ways you can improve. Are you settling for 'middle of the road' because it is easier than

reaching for more? Identify ways to get the skills you need to reach the Team Leadership position. These may

include involving others in problem solving or improving how you communicate with them, if you feel you are too task-oriented. Or it may mean becoming clearer about scheduling or monitoring project progress if you tend to focus too much on people.

Continually monitor your performance and watch for situations when you slip back into bad old habits.

Step Three: Put the Grid in Context

It is important to recognize that the Team Leadership style isn't always the most effective approach in every situation. While the benefits of democratic and participative management are

universally accepted, there are times that call for more attention in one area than another. If your company is in the midst of a merger or some other significant change, it is often acceptable to place a higher emphasis on people than on production. Likewise, when faced with an economic hardship or physical risk, people concerns may be placed on the back burner, for the short-term at least, to achieve high productivity and efficiency.

Note:Theories of leadership have moved on a certain amount since the Blake Mouton Grid was originally proposed. In particular, the context in which leadership occurs is now seen as an important driver of the leadership style used.

And in many situations, the "Team Leader" as an ideal has moved to the ideal of the "Transformational Leader": Someone who, according to leadership researcher Bernard Bass:

Is a model of integrity and fairness; Sets clear goals; Has high expectations; Encourages; Provides support and recognition; Stirs people's emotions; Gets people to look beyond their self-interest; and Inspires people to reach for the improbable.

So use Blake Mouton as a helpful model, but don't treat it as an "eternal truth".

Key Points

The Blake Mouton Managerial Grid is a practical and useful framework that helps you think about your leadership style. By plotting 'concern for production' against 'concern for people', the grid highlights how placing too much emphasis in one area at the expense of the other leads to low overall productivity.

The model proposes that when both people and production concerns are high, employee engagement and productivity increases accordingly. This is often true, and it follows the ideas of Theories X and Y, and other participative management theories.

While the grid does not entirely address the complexity of "Which leadership style is best?", it certainly provides an excellent starting place to critically analyze your own performance and improve your general leadership skills.

Action Centered LeadershipBalancing task, team and individual

Imagine you've recently started a new job as a team leader. At first, you're completely overwhelmed with all there is to do. You've got to get to grips with the group's objectives, assign tasks, keep everyone motivated, and adhere to a strict schedule. And that feels like just the tip of the iceberg!

You also know that, under your predecessor, several of the team were struggling a little, so you devote a lot of your time to coaching these individuals. This seems to be working well, with the team members concerned growing in confidence as a result of your hard work. But after a few weeks, your start to realize that things are going badly wrong in other areas.

The group isn't working cohesively as a whole, and an unpleasant blame culture has sprung up amongst several team members. And an important deadline is missed. You've been so busy coaching people that you didn't see these things till it was too late.

Managing a team is very much like juggling several balls at once. Drop one ball, and it spoils the whole pattern.

Unfortunately, this is an easy mistake for managers to make, as they spend too much time on one responsibility at the expense of others that are just as important. This is where a management model like Action Centered Leadership helps you monitor the balance between the key areas for which you're responsible, helping you avoid dropping any balls along the way.

In this article we'll detail what Action Centered Leadership is, and how to use it with your team.

Action Centered Leadership

Action Centered Leadership (sometimes known as ACL) is a model that was first published in 1973 by leadership expert, John Adair.

It's so-called because it highlights the key actions that leaders have to take when managing their teams. And it's particularly helpful because it groups these responsibilities together under three key areas:

Task: Achieving the team's goal. Team: Developing and building your team, so that it's ever more effective. Individual: Helping individuals develop their full potential in the workplace.

These areas are represented by the three interlocking circles, as shown in Figure 1 below.

The model states that leaders must balance the actions they take across all three key areas if they want their group to succeed. The areas are interdependent; if a leader focuses too much on one area and neglects the other two, then the group will experience problems.

Although Figure 1 shows all the circles being the same size, this doesn't mean that leaders should always divide up their effort across these areas equally. Rather, the most appropriate balance varies according to the situation, and over time.

The shaded areas in Figure 1 show where one element relies on one or both of the others for success.

Here is an example that illustrates this interdependency:

Imagine your team is working well together, and everyone has the skills to accomplish the final goal. However, there's one team member who isn't carrying his share of the load. He's lacking motivation, and missing deadlines. The entire group's morale starts to suffer because this one member is dragging down their productivity, and the team misses its deadline because he hasn't finished his work.

Here, issues with the individual are negatively affecting the task as well as the team.

Alternatively, imagine what would happen if you didn't articulate your team's goal properly. Everyone may have great individual skills, and people may work really well together, but because no one is sure what they should be trying to achieve, progress isn't being made towards your goal.

In this example, both the individual and the team needs are being met, but task needs are being ignored. Because the group isn't sure how to accomplish their task, they're headed towards failure.

How to Use the Tool:

Review the activities you're carrying out for each of the three key leadership areas, and make sure that you're dividing your time amongst all three appropriately.

Here's a list of common tasks for each of the three management responsibilities. You can use these as a guideline; and tasks can be added or eliminated based on your specific situation.

Task

Identify the purpose of the group, and communicate that purpose to all team members. Clearly state the final goal of the group. Make sure everyone understands the resources, people, and processes that they should be

using. Establish deadlines for project tasks, and explain the quality standards you're expecting. Create a detailed plan for how the group is going to reach their final goal.

Group

Identify the style the group will be working in (very formal, relaxed, etc.) Make sure that everyone in the group has the skills and training to accomplish the final

goal. If your team will be working in smaller groups, appoint a leader for each group, and

make sure that he or she is effective and properly trained. Monitor group relationships, and resolve conflicts where necessary. Work on keeping the group motivated, and morale high. Give regular feedback on the group's performance.

Individual

Make sure that you spend some one on one time with each member of your group for assessment: identify their strengths and weaknesses, their needs, and any special skills they can bring to the group.

Make sure each group member has the skills to perform his or her role successfully. Appropriately praise and reward individual team members for their contribution to the

group. Help define each individual's role within the group, and agree the tasks they're

responsible for. If any team members seem to be lagging behind, coach them until they're back on track.

If you'd like to learn more about your leadership style and how you can apply it to the Action Centered Leadership model, you can purchase ACL tests from John Adair's website.

Key Points

Leaders have many responsibilities when it comes to managing their teams. And, it's easy to get so focused on one area that the others slip by the wayside, leading to an unbalanced, poorly-functioning group.

Using a tool like Action Centered Leadership can help any leader stay on top of the most important responsibilities, and keep the group working efficiently, happily, and productively.

The Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership® TheoryChoosing the Right Leadership Style for the Right People

You've just finished training the newest member of your team. Now that he's ready to start working, you give him the data that you need him to enter into the company's database, and then you hurry off to a meeting.

When you return later that afternoon, you're disappointed to find that he hasn't done anything. He didn't know what to do, and he didn't have the confidence to ask for help. As a result, hours have been lost, and now you have to rush to enter the data on time. Although you may want to blame the worker, the truth is that you're as much to blame as he is.

How can you avoid situations like this?

Management experts Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard argue that these things happen because leaders don't match their style of leadership to the maturity of the person or group they're leading. When style and maturity aren't matched, failure is the result.

In this article, we'll review the Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership® Theory, and we'll explain how it's used in different leadership situations.

Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory

The Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory was created by Dr Paul Hersey, a professor and author of "The Situational Leader," and Ken Blanchard, author of the best selling "The One-Minute Manager," among others.

The theory states that instead of using just one style, successful leaders should change their leadership styles based on the maturity of the people they're leading and the details of the task. Using this theory, leaders should be able to place more or less emphasis on the task, and more or less emphasis on the relationships with the people they're leading, depending on what's needed to get the job done successfully.

Leadership Styles

According to Hersey and Blanchard, there are four main leadership styles:

Telling (S1) – Leaders tell their people exactly what to do, and how to do it.

Selling (S2) – Leaders still provide information and direction, but there's more communication with followers. Leaders "sell" their message to get the team on board.

Participating (S3) – Leaders focus more on the relationship and less on direction. The leader works with the team, and shares decision-making responsibilities.

Delegating (S4) – Leaders pass most of the responsibility onto the follower or group. The leaders still monitor progress, but they're less involved in decisions.

As you can see, styles S1 and S2 are focused on getting the task done. Styles S3 and S4 are more concerned with developing team members' abilities to work independently.

Maturity Levels

According to Hersey and Blanchard, knowing when to use each style is largely dependent on the maturity of the person or group you're leading. They break maturity down into four different levels:

M1 – People at this level of maturity are at the bottom level of the scale. They lack the knowledge, skills, or confidence to work on their own, and they often need to be pushed to take the task on.

M2 – at this level, followers might be willing to work on the task, but they still don't have the skills to do it successfully.

M3 – Here, followers are ready and willing to help with the task. They have more skills than the M2 group, but they're still not confident in their abilities.

M4 – These followers are able to work on their own. They have high confidence and strong skills, and they're committed to the task.

The Hersey-Blanchard model maps each leadership style to each maturity level, as shown below.

Maturity Level Most Appropriate Leadership Style

M1: Low maturity S1: Telling/directing

M2: Medium maturity, limited skills

S2: Selling/coaching

M3: Medium maturity, higher S3: Participating/supporting

skills but lacking confidence

M4: High maturity S4: Delegating

To use this model, reflect on the maturity of individuals within your team. The table above then shows which leadership style Hersey and Blanchard consider the most effective for people with that level of maturity.

Leadership Style Examples

1. You're about to leave for an extended holiday, and your tasks will be handled by an experienced colleague. He's very familiar with your responsibilities, and he's excited to do the job.

Instead of trusting his knowledge and skills to do the work, you spend hours creating a detailed list of tasks for which he'll be responsible, and instructions on how to do them.

The result? Your work gets done, but you've damaged the relationship with your colleague by your lack of trust. He was an M4 in maturity, and yet you used an S1 leadership style instead of an S4, which would have been more appropriate.

2. You've just been put in charge of leading a new team. It's your first time working with these people. As far as you can tell, they have some of the necessary skills to reach the department's goals, but not all of them. The good news is that they're excited and willing to do the work.

You estimate they're at an M3 maturity level, so you use the matching S3 leadership style. You coach them through the project's goals, pushing and teaching where necessary, but largely leaving them to make their own decisions. As a result, their relationship with you is strengthened, and the team's efforts are a success.

At Mind Tools, we recognize the truth within this model, however we believe that a different leadership style, "transformational leadership", is often the most effective style of leadership in business. If you'd like to learn more about different styles, including transformational leadership, see our article on Leadership Styles.

Key Points

All teams, and all team members, aren't created equal. Hersey and Blanchard argue that leaders are more effective when they use a leadership style based on the individuals or groups they're leading.

Start by identifying whom you're leading. Are your followers knowledgeable about the task? Are they willing and excited to do the work? Rate them on the M1-M4 maturity scale, and then use the leadership style that's appropriate for that rating.

Fiedler's Contingency ModelMatching Leadership Style to a Situation

What is your natural leadership style? Do you focus on completing tasks, or on building relationships with your team? Have you considered that this natural leadership style might be more suited to some situations or environments than it is to others?

In this article, we'll explore Fiedler's Contingency Model, and look at how it can highlight the most effective leadership style to use in different situations.

Note:Keep in mind that Fielder isn't using the word "contingency" in the sense of contingency planning. Here, "contingency" is a situation or event that's dependent on someone, or something else.

Understanding the Model

The Fiedler Contingency Model was created in the mid-1960s by Fred Fiedler, a scientist who helped advance the study of personality and characteristics of leaders.

The model states that there is no one best style of leadership. Instead, a leader's effectiveness is based on the situation. This is the result of two factors – "leadership style" and "situational favorableness" (later called "situational control").

Leadership Style

Identifying leadership style is the first step in using the model. Fiedler believed that leadership style is fixed, and it can be measured using a scale he developed called Least-Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) Scale (see Figure 1).

The scale asks you to think about the person who you've least enjoyed working with. This can be a person who you've worked with in your job, or in education or training.

You then rate each factor based on this person and add up your scores. If your total score is high, you're likely to be a relationship-orientated leader. If your total score is low, you're more likely to be task-orientated leader.

Figure 1: Least-Preferred Co-Worker Scale

Unfriendly 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8 Friendly

Unpleasant 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8 Pleasant

Rejecting 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8 Accepting

Tense 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8 Relaxed

Cold 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8 Warm

Boring 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8 Interesting

Backbiting 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8 Loyal

Uncooperative 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8 Cooperative

Hostile 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8 Supportive

Guarded 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8 Open

Insincere 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8 Sincere

Unkind 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8 Kind

Inconsiderate 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8 Considerate

Untrustworthy 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8 Trustworthy

Gloomy 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8 Cheerful

Quarrelsome 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8 Harmonious

The model says that task-oriented leaders usually view their LPCs more negatively, resulting in a lower score. Fiedler called these low LPC-leaders. He said that low LPCs are very effective at completing tasks. They're quick to organize a group to get tasks and projects done. Relationship-building is a low priority.

However, relationship-oriented leaders usually view their LPCs more positively, giving them a higher score. These are high-LPC leaders. High LPCs focus more on personal connections, and they're good at avoiding and managing conflict. They're better able to make complex decisions.

Situational Favorableness

Next, you determine the "situational favorableness" of your particular situation. This depends on three distinct factors:

Leader-Member Relations – This is the level of trust and confidence that your team has in you. A leader who is more trusted and has more influence with the group is in a more favorable situation than a leader who is not trusted.

Task Structure – This refers to the type of task you're doing: clear and structured, or vague and unstructured. Unstructured tasks, or tasks where the team and leader have little knowledge of how to achieve them, are viewed unfavorably.

Leader's Position Power – This is the amount of power you have to direct the group, and provide reward or punishment. The more power you have, the more favorable your situation. Fiedler identifies power as being either strong or weak.

Applying the Fiedler Contingency Model

Step 1: Identify your leadership style

Think about the person who you've least enjoyed working with, either now or in the past.

Rate your experience with this person using the scale in Figure 1, above. According to this model, a higher score means that you're naturally relationship-focused, and a lower score means that you're naturally task-focused.

Step 2: Identify your situation

Answer the questions:

Are leader-member relations good or poor?

Is the task you're doing structured, or is it more unstructured, or do you have little experience of solving similar problems?

Do you have strong or weak power over your team?

Step 3: Determine the most effective leadership style

Figure 2 shows a breakdown of all of the factors we've covered: Leader-Member Relations, Task Structure, and Leader's Position Power. The final column identifies the type of leader that Fiedler believed would be most effective in each situation.

Figure 2: Breakdown of Most Effective Leader Style

Leader-Member Relations

Task StructureLeader's Position Power

Most Effective Leader

Good Structured Strong Low LPC

Good Structured Weak Low LPC

Good Unstructured Strong Low LPC

Good Unstructured Weak High LPC

Poor Structured Strong High LPC

Poor Structured Weak High LPC

Poor Unstructured Strong High LPC

Poor Unstructured Weak Low LPC

For instance, imagine that you've just started working at a new company, replacing a much-loved leader who recently retired. You're leading a team who views you with distrust (so your Leader-Member Relations are poor). The task you're all doing together is well defined (structured), and your position of power is high because you're the boss, and you're able to offer reward or punishment to the group.

The most effective leader in this situation would be high LPC – that is, a leader who can focus on building relationships first.

Or, imagine that you're leading a team who likes and respects you (so your Leader-Member relations are good). The project you're working on together is highly creative (unstructured) and your position of power is high since, again, you're in a management position of strength. In this situation a task-focused leadership style would be most effective.

Criticisms of the Model

There are some criticisms of the Fiedler Contingency Model. One of the biggest is lack of flexibility. Fiedler believed that because our natural leadership style is fixed, the most effective way to handle situations is to change the leader. He didn't allow for flexibility in leaders.

For instance, if a low-LPC leader is in charge of a group with good relations and doing unstructured tasks, and she has a weak position (the fourth situation), then, according to the model, the best solution is to replace her with a high-LPC leader – instead of asking her to use a different leadership style.

There is also an issue with the Least-Preferred Co-Worker Scale – if you fall near the middle of the scoring range, then it could be unclear which style of leader you are.

There have also been several published criticisms of the Fiedler Contingency Model. One of the most cited is "The Contingency Model: Criticisms and Suggestions," published in the Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 3. The authors say that, even under the best circumstances, the LPC scale only has about a 50 percent reliable variance. This means that, according to their criticism, the LPC scale may not be a reliable measure of leadership capability.

It's also perfectly possible that your least preferred co-worker is a genuinely confused, unpleasant or evil person (they do exist) - if you are unfortunate enough to have encountered such a person just once in your career, then you might always be categorized as a low-LPC leader, however people-oriented you actually are.

Note:At Mind Tools, we believe that transformational leadership is the best leadership style in most situations, however, we believe that other leadership styles are sometimes necessary.

In our opinion, the Fiedler Contingency Model is unhelpful in many 21st Century workplaces. It may occasionally be a useful tool for analyzing a situation and determining whether or not to focus on tasks or relationships, but be cautious about applying any style simply because the model says you should. Use your own judgment when analyzing situations.

Key Points

The Fiedler Contingency Model asks you to think about your natural leadership style, and the situations in which it will be most effective. The model says that leaders are either task-focused, or relationship-focused. Once you understand your style, it says that you can match it to situations in which that style is most effective.

However, the model has some disadvantages. It doesn't allow for leadership flexibility, and the LPC score might give an inaccurate picture of your leadership style.

As with all models and theories, use your best judgment when applying the Fiedler Contingency Model to your own situation.