Philosophical Assumptions
Contingency leadership theory proceeds from the fact that when choosing a management style, preference should be given to the style that most takes into account the peculiarities of the situation that has arisen. Philosophical assumptions of this theory are built around the fact that the complete absence of contingency within an organization is not only an impossible condition, but also undesirable (Laras et al., 2020). This is due to the fact that most often contingencies are caused by conflicts, that is, the lack of agreement between several parties, which may be specific individuals or groups of individuals. Its main reason is the dissatisfaction with the needs of a person in a group.
Contingency situations also has its own philosophical principles, among which are the concentration and coordination of forces. Moreover, their distinctive feature is striking at the most vulnerable point of the organization. A contingency situation can be either functional, that is, leading to an increase in the effectiveness of the organization, or dysfunctional, leading to a decrease in personal satisfaction, group cooperation and the effectiveness of the organization. The role of contingency according to the philosophical assumptions of this theory depends mainly on how effectively the leader manages (Popp & Hadwich, 2018). To do this, the leader needs to know the causes of the occurrence of contingency situations, the type and their possible consequences. It is the knowledge of these factors that will allow them to choose the most effective method of resolving the situation.
Philosophical assumptions of the representatives of the continuity leadership theory allow us to distinguish several main types of emergencies in an organization according to their scale. The first is the contingency situation – resulting from the employee’s lack of agreement with oneself. The possible dysfunctional consequences of such a conflict are devastating (Henkel & Bourdeau, 2018). This situation can take various forms, of which the most common form of role conflict. Then the employee is presented with contradictory requirements regarding what the result of their work should be, or production requirements are not consistent with personal needs or values. Intrapersonal contingency situation can occur with low job satisfaction, self-doubt and organization, due to stress and for other reasons.
Interpersonal contingency is the most common of emergencies in an organization. It often manifests itself in problems related to limited resources, capital or people, equipment usage time or project approval. Interpersonal contingency can also manifest itself as a clash of personalities, values, and methods of achieving goals (Shala et al., 2021). Contingency between a person and a group may arise if a person takes a position that differs from the position of the group. Since organizations consist of and interact with many formal and informal groups, the emergence of intergroup contingencies is also possible. Thus, philosophical assumptions of the contingency leadership theory explain the sources of emergency situations in the organization, in which special actions on the part of the leader are necessary.
Principles
When settling contingency situations, the leader must observe certain principles when working with the team. First of all, their activities should be based on neutrality and impartiality. The leader must act in the interests of the company and must not have a personal interest in a certain way of resolving the situation. That is, the leader must comply with the principle of universal subjectivism or objectivity of subjectivism (Henkel & Bourdeau, 2018). It consists in recognizing the objectivity of subjectivism and the subjectivity of any opinion, since each employee has a unique consciousness, personality, individuality, hence the uniqueness of perception, evaluation and judgments.
Another principle that a leader should adhere to according to the continuity leadership theory is the principle of terminological certainty and agreement on meaning. The leader must recognize the need to achieve terminological and semantic certainty of all concepts used in the above in the event of an emergency and to coordinate their meaning (Abba et al., 2018). The subjectivity of perception forms the subjectivity of images of events, phenomena, objects in the consciousness of subjects. The coordination of the meaning of concepts and terms is the basis for the productivity of further discussion of the team’s actions in the context of contingency.
Moreover, the leader should adhere to the position that personnel is the main asset of the organization. This is due to the fact that, according to the concept of contingency leadership theory, an organization is a community of people, everything that happens in which is the result of the activities of both external personalities and interest groups working in it. The leader should follow the principle of personal example: the basis of their influence and authority in emergency situations should be the ability to convince, demonstrating professionalism: “Do as I do,” but not “Do as I say” (Abba et al., 2018). The principle of social responsibility of a leader, which is fundamental in emergency situations, is connected with the fact that the possibility of influencing the behavior and lives of other people requires awareness of responsibility and the presence of high ideals and ethics in the leader.
Especially important in the context of contingency is following the principle that analysis and diagnosis precede decision-making. First, the leader needs to understand what the object of influence is, and how they see the situation, and then look for a method of influence. The better the leader is aware of the object of influence, the more accurately they will be able to choose methods and tools to influence the situation. The leader needs to learn how to combine the principle of perception of subordinates as subjects of mutually beneficial interaction with the principle of priority of socio-psychological management methods (Henkel & Bourdeau, 2018). The first principle states that any employee remains a subject in any situation with his interests, motives, needs and will. In this regard, during emergencies, it is best for both sides to cooperate. The second principle states that the leader should also use economic and administrative methods as a reinforcement of socio-psychological methods.
Influence of Diversity
Philosophical assumptions of continuity leadership theory are largely shaped by diversity. Its concept is that most contingency situations are caused by a collision of oppositely directed, incompatible tendencies in interpersonal interactions or interpersonal relationships of individuals or groups of people associated with negative emotional experiences. The basis of the contingency of situations in a group between individuals is a clash between oppositely directed interests, opinions, goals, and different ideas about the way to achieve them caused by diversity (Abba et al., 2018). The causes of the contingency of situations can be grouped into several groups according to the diversity factors that determine them. First of all, these may be factors caused by structural diversity. It is expressed in social status, authority and accountability, various social norms and standards and traditions.
The source of contingency can also serve as value diversity, that is, the principles that employees proclaim or reject. Among them are social, group or personal systems of beliefs, beliefs and behavior, including preferences, aspirations and prejudices. Moreover, value diversity can manifest itself in ideological, cultural, religious, ethical, political, professional values and needs (Laras et al., 2020). Relationship factors between diverse groups also play a role in philosophical assumptions of the continuity theory. This may occur due to incompatibility of the parties with respect to values, behavior, personal and professional goals, differences in educational level, life and professional experience caused by diversity.
Diversity has also shaped principles of contingency leadership theory. In the world of cultural diversity, the leader first of all needs to identify common points of cultures, common values and interests. This will facilitate the process of intercultural communication, which is an extremely important phenomenon of the economic behavior of multicultural teams in conditions (Shala et al., 2021). Then the leader needs to realize cross-cultural differences in order to find common ground and establish trusting relationships aimed at a long-term perspective.
The contingency leader builds its relationships with team members on an emotionally neutral basis, within the framework of an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect. This implies a strong relationship between the leader and the team members, where, in turn, everyone counts on each other in case of a contingency. The contingency leader should have the ability to understand, practically comprehend and harmonize cross-cultural differences, achieving a synergistic effect. The continuity leadership model, considered from the perspective of optimizing economic behavior in a multicultural team and increasing the effectiveness of its management, assumes the following components. They include a leader with certain leadership abilities and economic behavior, followers, and situations in which the leader and team members interact. Their intersection gives an optimal combination of groups of factors necessary for the effective regulation of an emergency situation in a diverse team.
References
Abba, M., Yahaya, L., & Suleiman, N. (2018). Explored and critique of contingency theory for management accounting research. Journal of Accounting and Financial Management, 4(5), 40–50.
Henkel, T., & Bourdeau, D. (2018). A field study: An examination of managers’ situational leadership styles. Journal of Diversity Management, 13(2), 7–14.
Laras, T., Kresnanto, N. C., Raharti, R. N., Basri, H., & Jatmiko, J. (2020). Leadership comparison model at higher university: Contingency friendlier method; path-goal theory method and Harsey and Blanchard method. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 14(7), 1374–1387.
Popp, M., & Hadwich, K. (2018). Examining the effects of employees’ behaviour by transferring a leadership contingency theory to the service context. Journal of Service Management Research, 2(3), 44–59.
Shala, B., Prebreza, A., & Ramosaj, B. (2021). The contingency theory of management as a factor of acknowledging the leaders-managers of our time study case: The practice of the contingency theory in the company Avrios. Open Access Library Journal, 8(9), 1–20.