Week 4: Contingency Theory

Topic: Theories in Action – Contingency Theory

The Contingency theory states that “there is no best way to organize a corporation, to lead a company, or to make decisions. Instead, the optimal course of action is contingent (dependent) upon the internal and external situation.” I have seen this in action multiple times in the edit room this past week – I have asked myself multiple times is leadership effectiveness contingent upon past experience/knowledge? What if those experiences and expertise are different in nature, and thus, are more or less effective in their own distinctive capacities? How do you decide who the better leader is?

To be specific – my producer, Farad, and my director, Aida, have been struggling to see eye-to-eye on several sequences. Farad has extensive background in film; as the founder of No Mad Productions, he has produced and directed hundreds of films over the past twenty years. Aida’s background is predominately in journalism; with over ten years  of writing experience for some of the biggest global news publications, she is incredibly in tune with what elements make a compelling story that will sell. They both have their strong suits but it seems they believe their own strong suits to be more valuable than the others’.

For example – there is one interview scene where Aida asked me to frame our subject in the center of the screen, with a tight close-up and shallow depth of field. This blurs the background and with the subject’s face filling up the majority of the screen, we are locked into her face, forced to focus on what she is saying. From a story perspective, it is a clever way of directing the viewer’s attention to where you want it to be, without any space for distraction. From a film standpoint – and Farad’s standpoint – it is breaking the classic rule of thirds rule (in which subjects should be placed in 1/3 of the frame, looking off screen, with 2/3 of space between the end of the frame and their face). Farad thought the tight frame does not give the subject enough room to breathe. Whereas one leader feels it is captivating, the other feels it is suffocating. Working in such a subjective industry is tricky because neither of them are right nor wrong – it is simply personal taste. However, as both “leaders” of this film – whose opinion is more valid?