A “contingent” view of leadership: 360 degree assessments of leadership behaviours in different contexts

Abstract

Purpose – Much popular thinking on leadership assumes that there is some “essence” of effective leadership, that there are “universal” leadership traits and/or behaviours associated with success in all situations. This article aims to challenge such views, providing evidence showing that 360 degree assessments of different leadership behaviours vary according to the context. This article seeks to present evidence that supports a “contingent” view of leadership. Design/methodology/approach – The research described looks at the degree of correlation, and its statistical significance, between self-assessed leadership behaviour and 360 degree assessments of performance. Evidence is presented showing that results vary in different contexts. Findings – Statistically significant relationships were found between leadership behaviours and 360 degree outcomes. These relationships varied according to the context, including the individual's seniority, control over resources and line management responsibility, as well as the size of the organisation and rate of organisational change. Research limitations/implications – The research uses one outcome measure, is based on managers in the UK public sector and explores a limited number of contextual variables. Further research using other outcome measures, based on other populations and considering other contextual variables would be useful. Some of the sub-samples are also quite small and there is a need for further research in small organisations, organisations undergoing limited change and with individuals line managing large numbers of staff. Research using more objective measures of organisational size would also be useful. Practical implications – The research findings highlight the fact that, in order to be effective, leaders need to tailor their behaviour to the specific situation. Inappropriate behaviour reduces personal effectiveness and, in consequence, organisational effectiveness. Providers of leadership training and development need to be more aware of the “contingent” nature of leadership. This means abandoning “universal” leadership models and prescriptions. Social implications – This paper has implications for individuals in leadership roles, for individuals providing leadership training and development, and for purchasers of leadership training and development solutions. All need to recognise the “contingent” nature of leadership. Originality/value – This paper provides an evidence-based challenge to the widely held view that there is some “essence” of leadership, that there are “universal” leadership traits and/or behaviours. While there are some published examples of such “contingency” research into leadership, they are limited in number, and little known and seldom used in the world of training and development.