Despite the advantages of the Contingency leadership style, it has numerous limitations. Critics argue that Contingency style is not a theory in the first place because it lacks well-established interrelated propositions. Therefore, the critics state that Contingency style of leadership is more of an orienting strategy that suggests means for conceptualizing phenomena. The style relies on various explicit assumptions from the various empirical data (Dinh, 2014). One of the common explicit assumptions is that there exists no single best way to organize and respond to a situation. The second explicit assumption states that no single way is effective in all situations and circumstances. The contingency theory then emphasizes that organizational structures need to be appropriate to the environmental conditions that face the organization if they are to be effective (Fiedler, 2015). Despite the clarity of the overall strategy, the theory obscures its substance.
The theory is not clear due to the ambiguity of the theoretical statements. Studies conducted by the contingency theorists suggest that a specific structure should apply to particular environments, for instance when structures of the organizations conform to the available technologies to harmonize the internal states with the external requirements (Van Wart, 2014). In this way, an organization will be in a position to maximize consistency between their structure and the technology. However, these statements do not provide the clear difference between technology and the environment. There lies a possibility that technology and environment are distinctly related to different variables instead of an unspecified set as suggested by the contingency theory.
The second issue with the contingency theory of leadership lies in the applicability of the content matter. For instance, to state that a phenomenon is dynamic and contextual seems obvious. However, the problem arises on how the theory can be applied to resolve a problem. Therefore, the approach lacks specification granularity. Thus, this limitation criticizes the notion that contingency approach is very simple, that leaders respond according to the dictates of the environment and the situation (Dinh, 2014). The complexity, however, is manifested in practice. Managers and leaders usually respond after a thorough consideration and analysis of various variables that have varied dimensions. It, therefore, implies that managers who are pressed for time would resort to short cuts and ignore the need to thoroughly analyze the situation before taking any action.
Moreover, critics fault the contingency theory for lack of adequate literature. Due to literature inadequacy, the system has no spelled out actions to be carried out under diverse situations. Besides, it is not satisfactory to state that the action of a leader should depend on the situation. Rather, the approach needs to be elaborate and indicate what needs to be done under various situations (Fiedler, 2015). Further, a comprehensive literature will strive to emphasize what must be done to achieve a particular outcome. If the approach cannot link various actions with different scenarios, then the theory would be of little use to the managers.
Although there is no magic combination of characteristics that makes a leader succeed, different characteristics are preferred in various situations. However, an individual can still learn to become effective in a leadership position. People often need to understand the most appropriate leadership approach that would yield optimum and desired outcomes according to a particular situation (Van Wart, 2014). Thus, to understand the various approaches to applying in various situations, a manager needs to learn various leadership theories to gain a thorough understanding of the different approaches that would lead to an optimal result. These theories provide the foundation for the understanding and enhancing leadership effectiveness. Therefore, to maximize success in organizational management, these theories may be considered:
According to this theory, the various qualities that predispose an individual to success in leadership roles are inborn. It opines that an individual either is born with leadership qualities or will not acquire it throughout their lives. For instance, the qualities such as cognitive ability and personality are the primary effective leadership qualities (Dong, 2016). Although several studies have been set forward to determine the most critical traits of effective leaders, it is unarguable that intelligence, drive, and sociability are the most critical traits to the success of a leader. Thus, to realize success even in situational circumstances, an individual needs considerable intelligence and relational skills before sanctioning the execution of the issue.
Skills theory states that acquired skills, abilities, and knowledge are critical to the effectiveness and the success in leadership roles. However, this theory does not disavow the traits theory that implies inheritance of leadership qualities, but simply state that learned skills, acquired knowledge, and developed style are the magic wand for success in leadership roles (Dinh, 2014). There argument for this theory explains the reason for immense investment in various and educational programs to train and develop leaders.
This theory holds that leadership is the act of engaging others in a manner that creates a connection, which leads to increased morale and motivation between leaders and followers. This style is usually likened to the charismatic leadership theory, which posits that leaders with particular qualities such as extroversion, confidence, and well-grounded values often have the intrinsic ability to motivate their followers (Roueche, 2014). The effectiveness of a leader in this scenario requires their ability to listen to the needs, motives and requirements of their followers and find the best means to motivate them to achieve the desired outcome. Additionally, this theory implies the means through which leaders instigate, develop and implement critical needs of an organization.
Therefore, there is no doubt that some leadership characters are inborn. However, these qualities usually overgrow to attain their potential when an individual acquires knowledge and skills. On the other hand, transformative leadership theory is an effective leadership style mostly due to its focus on human relations to motivate individuals and assist them to achieve the desired goal.
