Assumptions The leader's ability to lead is

contingent upon various situational factors, including the leader's preferred style, the capabilities and behaviors of followers and also various other situational factors.

Description

Contingency theories are a class of behavioral theory that contend that there is no one best way of leading and that a leadership style that is effective in some situations may not be successful in others.

An effect of this is that leaders who are very effective at one place and time may become unsuccessful either when transplanted to another situation or when the factors around them change.

This helps to explain how some leaders who seem for a while to have the 'Midas touch' suddenly appear to go off the boil and make very unsuccessful decisions.

Historically, contingency theory has sought to formulate broad generalizations about the formal structures that are typically associated with or best fit the use of different technologies.

The perspective originated with the work of Joan Woodward (1958), who argued that technologies directly determine differences in such organizational attributes as span of control, centralization of authority, and the formalization of rules and procedures.

Contingency theory is similar to situational theory in that there is an

assumption of no simple one right way. The main difference is that

situational theory tends to focus more on the behaviors that the leader

should adopt, given situational factors (often about follower behavior),

whereas contingency theory takes a broader view that includes contingent

factors about leader capability and other variables within the situation.

•is a class of behavioral theory that claims 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. Several contingency approaches were developed

concurrently in the late 1960s.

They suggested that previous theories such as Weber's bureaucracy and Taylor's scientific management had failed because they neglected that management style and organizational structure were influenced by various aspects of the environment: the contingency factors. There could not be "one best way" for leadership or organization.

Historically, contingency theory has sought to formulate broad generalizations about the formal structures that are typically associated with or best fit the use of different technologies.

The perspective originated with the work of Joan Woodward (1958), who argued that technologies directly determine differences in such organizational attributes as span of control, centralization of authority, and the formalization of rules and procedures.