Identify and describe the key components of the contingency model of leadership as presented by the
authors. Analyse the relationship between certain key contingency factors and outcomes, such as
follower involvement, dependence, creativity, and psychological empowerment. Evaluate the findings of
the authors compared to the theories covered this week with regards to creating and sustaining
productive leadership.
The following conditions must meet in the paper
1) I want a typical and a quality answer which should have about 830 words.
2) The answer must raise appropriate critical questions.
3) The answer must include examples from experience or the web with references from relevant
examples from real companies.
4) Do include all your references, as per the Harvard Referencing System,
5) Please don�t use Wikipedia web site.
6) I need examples from peer reviewed articles or researches.
2
BL.ASS.W3
Houghton and Yoho (2005) present a contingency model of leadership that seeks to empower
and encourage follower self-leadership. Key components of the model include follower
development, task structure and situational urgency as well as how leadership approaches should
be applied to make the model successful.
Employee empowerment and follower development results from the increased need for
companies to compete efficiently given the modern competitive environment. This theory
suggests increased involvement of employees through decentralized systems that allow them to
be increasingly responsible for their own jobs. In linking this key contingency factor to the most
appropriate approach to leadership, the authors note that the length of engagement between the
employer and the employee determines the kind of leadership approach to adopt. Accordingly,
transactional or directive leadership may apply for short-term engagements where efficiency is
more important than follower development while a transformational leadership approach may
apply for long-term engagements. This is highly applicable in real life as I have observed since
employers who take on employees for short assignments such as laborers in the construction
industry are less likely to be concerned about their development but more about their compliance
and efficiency. On the other hand however, long-term employees often receive considerable
investment on training and are likely to be more empowered. At PriceWaterHouse Coopers
(PWC) for example, the employee-led strategy ensures that besides recruiting the most qualified
candidates, training and continuous development of employees is given priority to ensure that the
company remains at the top of competition (Macleod and Clarke, 2011).
3
Situational urgency is the second factor, which seeks to explain how the leadership approach
may differ depending on the urgency of the situation. It puts fort that in crisis situations, the time
for self-leadership capability development in followers is hardly available and therefore such
urgency may call for utilization of a highly directive leadership style or transformational
leadership style. A perfect example is in the police force where in responding to emergencies
such as terrorist attacks, specific and directive orders may be necessary depending on the
severity of the situation and the leader must therefore take charge to effectively coordinate the
group; hence a directive style approach (Papworth, Milne and Boak, 2009). Empowering and
transactional leadership approaches are more applicable in low urgency situations.
The last factor is the task environment which basically refers to how the task environment of the
follower is structured or unstructured. Transactional leadership is deemed more applicable in
well structured task situations while the directive approach would apply in unstructured task
situations. In a factory setting where there is constant job rotation for example, it is difficult to
have a structured job and directive leadership is therefore likely to apply; with followers taking
instructions depending on their duty station.
The identified contingency factors have significant impact on outcomes within the organization
including follower involvement, dependence, creativity, and psychological empowerment.
Empowerment and follower development has been proven to play a great role in promoting
efficiency, creativity, follower involvement and psychological empowerment. According to
Papworth, Milne and Boak (2009), employees who are empowered are more likely to ‘own’ their
jobs and are therefore more committed to ensuring success. Furthermore, empowerment ensures
that dependence is reduced and that employees are committed to company success as opposed to
4
making it the responsibility of leaders only. Psychological empowerment also results because by
giving followers autonomy in doing their jobs, leaders demonstrate that they can trust their
followers.
Situational urgency depending on how it is handled may lead to the negative effect of excessive
dependence of followers. This is especially in very urgent situations where directive approach to
leadership is utilized. Why does this happen yet followers are well trained to handle emergency
situations? Papworth, Milne and Boak (2009) notes that followers may be unable to execute
simple actions because they are used to receiving specific orders from their leaders and are
therefore not empowered to perform their tasks. In addition, the low expectations that leaders
have on followers tend to make their productivity and creativity levels low.
Why is it important to effectively structure follower duties? One would ask. Houghton and Yoho
(2009) note that in situations where jobs are highly unstructured, it is possible for employees to
undermine the value of intrinsic motivation and that followers may as a result be demotivated;
hence leading to low productivity. This is because there is no specific target or outcome that is
expected of the employee and neither are there rewards aimed at encouraging achievement of
such outcomes. Structured jobs which allow for easy delegation and follower empowerment on
the other hand may result in increased psychological empowerment and consequently increased
creativity. This is because followers are well informed on what they are expected to deliver and
can easily come up with strategies that will allow productive outcomes.
The contingency model of leadership by Houghton and Yoho (2005) portrays a great level of
similarity with theories aimed at creating and sustaining productive leadership covered in the
course. It is notable that sustainable leadership is a question of creating a good relationship with
5
followers and empowerment is one such approach. Productive leadership is not just about getting
the job done but also minding the welfare of those who are executing the job. Motivation as
discussed in this article is therefore of essence. In addition, follower development emerges as an
important aspect of leadership as it not only promotes efficiency but also improves motivation;
leading to better outcomes.
References
Houghton JD & Yoho, SK 2005, “Toward a contingency model of leadership and psychological
empowerment: when should self-leadership be encouraged?” Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 65-83.
6
Macleod, D & Clarke, N 2011, “Engaging for Success: enhancing performance through
employee engagement”, Office of Public Sector Information. United Kingdom.
Papworth M, Milne D & Boak G 2009, An exploratory content analysis of situational leadership,
Jounal of Management Development Vol 28, no. 7, pp. 593 – 606.
