Contingency Theory Elaborated Upon

In my first, “Theories in Action” post, I delineated the ways the Contingency Theory was apparent in the organization of the National Lawyers Guild. I mostly concentrated on how the situation (i.e. the medium level of task structure) makes relationship oriented leadership preferable. I concluded that the Executive Director, Jay demonstrated a combination of task oriented and relationship oriented leadership styles by the way she treated her Least Preferred Coworker, Therese. She was task oriented in the sense that she demonstrated some frustration with Therese when she made an error with tracking the monetary donations. She wanted Therese to explain the problem to her plainly and to find a solution. She did not leave time to discuss the factors which led to Therese making an error or whether the error was due to a lack of resources or support. On the other hand, Jay did treat Therese amiably. She made an effort to ease tensions in the office by bringing snacks and throwing Therese a goodbye party, once she announced that she would be leaving.

However, the Contingency Theory is a leader-match theory and in order to fully determine the preferable style of leadership, I need to also consider other variables of situational favorableness beyond task structure: 1. Leader-member relations and 2. Power structure. I would assert that the leader member relations on a whole were strong. Jay was a very approachable leader to everyone in the office, even the interns. She made herself available to answer questions and earned a high degree of trust and confidence from the other office members that she would do what she promised she would do. For example, she set aside weekly check-ins with me on Tuesday mornings. She never slacked on this obligation even if that week I did not have much to discuss with her, which contributed to the confidence I felt in her as a leader. I would assert that the leader’s position power was moderate. Given the small number of staff, the power structure was not as strongly delineated as I imagine it would be in a bigger organization. Yet, it was also not a flat structure as Jay was the clear “leader” in the office. She had the ability to make hiring/ firing decisions and was responsible for directing the organization and her staff member’s responsibilities.

Considering that the leader-member relations were good, the task structure was moderate, and the power structure was moderate, I propose that the situational favorableness of the organization was moderate. According to the Contingency Theory, in an environment where situational favorableness is moderate, a relationship-oriented leadership style is preferable, as I had originally stated. On the whole, Jay demonstrated a relationship-oriented leadership style. However, her interactions with Therese prior to her resigning were strained. Had Therese stayed with the organization, I would have proposed that employing the LMX Theory to strengthen her relationship with Therese would have benefited Jay’s effectiveness as a leader. Employing the LMX Theory in her interactions with Therese, would ultimately improve their working relationship to one characterized by reciprocal influence, trust, respect, mutual obligation, and the internalization of common goals. Ultimately, the improved relationship would lead to optimized performance in the office.