Contingency vs. Trait Leadership Theories

This assignment analyzes the differences between contingency and trait theories of leadership, focusing on their practical application in handling crisis situations. It delves into the strengths and limitations of each theory, ultimately arguing that contingency theory offers a more comprehensive and adaptable approach to leadership in modern organizations.

PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES OF LEADERSHIP
MANAGEMENT
1

Table of contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Body.................................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................7
Reference List..................................................................................................................................8
2

Introduction
The vision of the leaders often ensures success of organizations by leading a team towards
desired direction fulfilling all the prerequisites. The leader is the key personality to lead a group
of people ensuring right deeds, setting direction and framing inspiring vision. Avolio et al.
(2009) noted that leaders map out the things need to be done to attain the set goal. There is
always a debate whether trait theories or the contingency theories are more useful while applying
the same in the organization. On this note, it must be mentioned that trait theories put more stress
on assessing characteristics (creativity, intelligence) of the leaders (either born or made).
Conversely, contingency theories focus on the situation based upon which capabilities of the
leaders are determined. The current study mainly aims to develop a critical analysis illustrating
the applicability of trait and contingency theories. In addition to that, discourse on comparative
(critical) analysis will be made to assert the applicability of theories on situations within
organizations.
Body
Trait theories of leadership
Trait theory of leadership deals with the mental, physical and social characteristics common in
all the leaders. The theory points out the common traits among all the leaders and elucidates
those are necessary characteristics a leader needs to possess to be efficient and successful
enough. Bennis (2007) stated that capabilities are rooted among the leaders that they usually
possess in organization. Over the years, many researchers and scholars have conducted
researches to point out the catalysts (variables) behind success of the well-known leaders.
Research conducted by Boies et al. (2015) assessed that there is a significant link between the
successful leadership and personality traits. Characteristics such as openness, self-efficacy,
introversion and intelligence are some of the traits that ensure success of the leaders. However,
argument put forward by Certo and Trevis Certo (2014) depicts that leaders are made based upon
divergent situations and tasks they perform. At the initial stage, the theorists used to believe
leadership to be an instinctive quality however; the conception has been altered by modern ideas
3

in the past years. Some of the critics criticize the traits not as ultimate factor behind success as it
does not ensure success for any of the leaders.
Trait theories also indentify the successive and failure factors for the leaders to predict
effectiveness of applied leadership approach. The resulting traits are listed and are compared to
the leaders to evaluate the likelihood of failure and success. While assessing the effectiveness
characteristics such as demographic, social, personal and intellective are considered. It is
strongly believed that there are certain qualities such as personality and ability that are different
in successful leaders comparing to less effective leaders. Achievement drive, knowledge of
business, cognitive ability, honesty and integrity are some of the factors those do not necessarily
ensure success for the leaders but are the preconditions a leader needs to possess. Conger (2004)
mentioned that through trait theories, the requisite elements of the leadership can be determined.
Nevertheless, there are certain limitations such as subjective judgment, limited traits, lack of
differentiation in terms of traits (high, low), and complexity are the some of the areas because of
which the theory is often criticized that hampers to acceptability to a greater extent among the
leaders.
Contingency theories of leadership
Contingency theorists strongly believe that there should be no particular way to lead but adoption
of leadership style should be based upon the situation or the tasks. In other words, it can be stated
that leaders are there who give best responses when the situation demands more. It should also
be noted that the contingency theories are none but extension of the trait theories that explain
leadership approach vividly. Daft (2011) established the link by saying that traits are linked with
the situation (directly/indirectly). The emergence of the theory came from the hypothesis that
whether leaders remain ‘leaders’ in all situations. From the formed hypothesis, it is noted that a
leader leading successfully in one situation may not lead in different situation with the same
traits or approach. As per this assumption, scholars noted that there is no set of traits (personality
characteristics) ensuring effectiveness of the leaders. Nevertheless, the interaction between the
traits and situations may ensure successive path (Day, 2012). Conversely, this theory shows that
success of the leaders is ensured with the combination of personal traits and the demands of the
situation. In this light, one of the contingency theories proposed by Fiedler’s theory could be
averred where the author focuses on the interaction of leadership approach and the situation.
4

Three crucial factors such as quality of relationship (with members), structure of the tasks and
amount of formal authority are listed as successive factors.
Contingency theorists possess the conception that successes of the leaders are the functions of
different contingencies that may come in altered form such as group variable, subordinate or the
task itself. In addition, the effectiveness of the leadership style is the dependent on the criteria
imposed by the very situation. Contingency approach proposes different styles of leadership
based upon the situation created within the organization. In this form of theories, authors
propagated divergent forms. For example, Hersey and Blanchard’s situation theory propagates
three dimensions such as task, leadership and readiness. On the other hand, Vroom and Yetton’s
decision participation theory postulates that effective decision-making depends on quality,
relevance and amount of information obtained.
Discourse on applicability of the proper leadership theory
It is debatable to comment on applicability of a particular theory as situation is ever changing in
modern business organizations. One leadership approach may be significant for one situation but
it may get vain in other situation. While taking a glance at the modern organizational
environment, it can be found that the nature of team and tasks have been changed due to
encouragement of diversity, equality, fairness. People from different background (culture) may
work within a team and may be led by a leader from another background. Form this observation,
it can be noted that the leaders may need to alter the approach as per demands of the situation.
Differences in business operations of different organizations that may need advanced or altered
leadership approach to ensure success (Higgs and Rowland, 2011). Debate on applicability of
leadership approach may raise questions that do not necessarily find any valid answer. It could
be seen that trait theory has been advanced with the thought that traits may be developed that
widen the chances of acceptability. However, the theory is limited within the listed traits. If
studied more, some more traits could have been added. On the other hand, there is certain
goodness in the theory that it is applicable for all the leaders and provides with constructive
framework of leadership. Leaders may evaluate their position within the organization and can
find the ways to sharpen their conduct of leadership to make it more effective. Trait approach
also guides the leaders to determine the weaknesses and work on those to be more effective.
5

Some of the instances of great leaders and their skills can be averred here to get lucid
understanding. For instance, Steve Jobs is considered as one of the prominent and successful
leaders until date. Some of the capabilities listed from his entire career of being a successful
entrepreneur include confidence, adaptability, sense of urgency and vision. It is seen that he has
not only successfully led Apple and Pixar but could be able to lead many other organizations
with ease and simplicity. The level of confidence he used to possess gave him self-assurance and
gave the power to break the barriers (Snow, 2015). He was too focused and compassioned at the
same time turning himself into a favorite leader of all time. Clear vision where he wanted to lead
gave him the strength to be clear and fair. Another instance of Bill gates can be given here who
used to possess successive factors such as growing and learning with time, clear vision, caring
attitude towards the employees. The individual owns one of the most successful companies in the
world and receiver of many medals and awards in his continuing career. He is often considered
as a philanthropist having a clear vision as a result of which Microsoft exists. On an important
note, it should also be observed that he possesses a caring approach for the employees and
believes in the notion of humanitarianism.
While having a glance at the contingency theories it is noticed that situation is given more
emphasis than the traditional traits (as per trait theory). The success of the leaders is determined
based upon the readiness to deal the situation with competencies. However, link can easily be
found between trait and contingency theory as if the leaders lack basic traits, will not be able to
deal with the situation resulting in vain. In the modern organizations, teams are formed
containing people from different backgrounds (especially in multinational companies to greater
extent) therefore there are chances of conflicts all the time (Boies et al. 2015). Now, this is the
very responsibility of the leader to deal with the conflicts and take effective measures to solve
those maintain an approach that is competent enough to solve the issues. There are presence of
other leadership approaches such as transactional, transformational based upon the viability of
the situation. Members come from different societal and cultural background expanding the
room for misunderstanding and conflicts. Here, the leader should possess the qualities to deal the
situation. Traits need to be there but the correct approach also determines the conflict resolution
mechanisms (Conger, 2004). Contingency theories on the other hand hold greater scope than the
trait theory as the extension of the same that might be more applicable for the modern age
leaders. Through these, different dimensions of corrective leadership styles are exposed that help
6

in dealing the critical situations with ease. Now argument can be put forward by saying that both
the theories complement each other and there is a clear link. Without having some traits such as
empathy, readiness, creativity, intelligence situation cannot be dealt. Conversely, the traits
cannot determine the success alone as situation wise it may change the nature lowering the
chances of success. On the other hand, if the person uses corrective approach (leadership style)
based upon situation but lacks the traits then chances of success in terms of dealing the situation
are low.
However, the applicability of contingency theories is greater due to wider scope than the trait
theory. Trait theory is one of the conventional theories but in the modern diverse situation, it may
not be fruitful for the leaders while following simplistic mechanism (Certo and Trevis Certo,
2014). Conversely, contingency theory is propagated as the extension having wider scope to deal
a situation from different dimensions that is more coherent. Leaders get the chance to apply and
show their abilities as per the demands of the situation turning them into superior leaders. The
conception is novice than comparing it with the preceding one. There might be some inborn
qualities among the leaders but these need encouragement and nourishment through which
capabilities get polished. All these qualities does not necessarily ensure effectiveness of the
leaders as there are question of personal choice, belief, knowledge (depends on gene as well) that
determine a good leader. From the comparative analysis, it can be stated that contingency theory
is having wider scope than the trait theory as it is limited under listed traits. Contingency theory
gives more creativity to deal a crisis from different dimensions that is required in modern-days
organizations.
Conclusion
In this current study, efforts have been made to develop a comparative analysis between
contingency and trait theory based upon their applicability. It is noted from the arguments that
scope and viability in contingency theory provides it with more scope to be applied in crises. The
study was helpful in developing understanding regarding effectiveness of leadership styles in
organization while leading people towards desired goal. Most importantly, linkage between the
two theories has also been averred to acquire vivid understanding.
7

Reference List
Avolio, B.J., Walumba, f.O. and Weber, T.J. (2009) ‘Leadership: Current Theories, research, and
Future Directions’, Annual review of Psychology, 60, pp. 421-449.
Bennis, W. (2007) 'The Challenges of Leadership in the Modern World', American Psychologist,
62(1), pp. 2-5.
Boies, K., Fiset, J. and Gill. (2015) ‘Communication and trust are key: Unlocking the
relationship between leadership and team performance and creativity’,The Leadership Quarterly.
Dec. 26(6) pp. 1080-1094
Certo, S.C. and Trevis Certo, S. (2014) Modern Management: Concepts and Skills. 13th edn.
International Edition. Harlow: Pearson.
Conger, J. A. (2004) 'Developing Leadership Capability: what’s inside the black box?' Academy
of Management Executive, 18(3), pp. 136-139.
Daft R. L. (2011) Leadership. 5th edn. – International Edition, London: South-Western Cengage
Learning
Day, D. V. and Antonakis, J. (Eds.) (2012) The Nature of Leadership. 2nd edn. London: Sage
Higgs, M. and Rowland, D. (2011) ‘What does it Take to Implement Change Successfully? A
Study of the Behaviors of Successful Change Leaders’, Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science,47(3), pp. 309-335
Snow, C.C. (2015) ‘Organizing in the Age of Competition, Co-operation, and Collaboration’,
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(4), pp 433-442
8