Contingency Approach to Change Contingency Approach Developmental

Contingency Approach to Change Contingency Approach Developmental transitions, task-focused transitions, charismatic transformations, turnarounds and Taylorist methods Contingency theory suggests that there is no singular, prescriptive way of enacting change. Rather, the specific circumstances must be taken into consideration. In general, contingency theory proposes that change is dependent upon the relationship between the leaders and followers, the structure of the task, and the position of the leader (Doyle & Smith 2001).

For example, in a developmental or gradual transition, the leader is more likely to be in a weaker position of power and need additional 'buy-in' from employees. A major departmental overhaul may be more appropriately rendered in such a fashion, given the shock of a sudden transition along with the close-knit nature of the community. Another good example of when a developmental approach might be used is when the needed changes the organization might embark upon are uncertain.

Through collaboration, the path of change is arrived at by all organizational participants. The leader exercises some direction, but accepts input from other organizational members. For example, when a university is enacting changes to serve the student body, the president will likely solicit information from faculty members and students, rather than dictate changes in philosophy or coursework in an autocratic fashion. In contrast, during task-specific transitions, the leader exercises a great deal of authority. A task-focused transition may feature a more powerful leader.

Also, "if the task is clearly spelled out as to goals, methods and standards of performance then it is more likely that leaders will be able to exert influence" (Doyle & Smith 2001). A good example of a task-specific transition might be a shift to using a new type of computer system at work. In such a shift, the known transition is already decided. The task is defined and relatively enclosed.

In task-specific transitions, usually the leader has a fair amount of authority in deciding how the structure of the change will take place. This is because of the definite nature of the task, and the fact that the leader possesses the greatest amount of knowledge in terms of how the change will be orchestrated, and the planning of the change. With charismatic transitions, the leader can exert considerable influence over his or her followers.

The followers are also often willing to obey, because of the charismatic sway of the leader's personality. Charisma is, of course, difficult to define, but examples of charismatic leaders include the late Steve Jobs. It is said that employees at the Apple Company were often willing to accept lower levels of pay than they might receive elsewhere, simply because they were so eager to work at Apple. "Google's perks and benefits seem to be better than Apple. And Microsoft's health benefits are supposedly amazing.

Apple's don't seem to be anything special.. If you have a project that Steve is not involved in, it will take months of meetings to move things forward. If Steve wants it done, it's done faster than anyone thinks is humanly possible... Apple employees believe they are changing the world.. you are part of something much bigger than you" (Yarow 2011). Employees who did not believe that they are doing great work by realizing Jobs' vision went elsewhere, looking for work.

In complete organizational turnarounds, the organization has been experiencing a considerable deficit in performance for some time. The followers are more willing to accept that change is needed, although they may be suspicious of leadership, thus reducing the leader's power to some degree. There may also be a great deal of fear that people will lose their jobs during a merger or reorganization. Turnarounds require strong leadership because of their complete nature, and because of the fact that changes must often be undertaken in a time-sensitive fashion.

However, in a struggling organization, the buy-in of employees cannot be assumed; rather it must be hard-won. In a Taylorist or scientific managerial approach, the followers are viewed as mere cogs in the wheel of a machine, and the leader has considerable sway in imposing his position upon the followers. Taylor believed that workers in the absence of additional pay incentives had little motivation to work hard, and often worked inefficiently, because of custom rather than intelligence.

Taylor tried to scientifically determine the most efficient way to move on a production line and effectively 'forced' workers to perform at an optimal level. Most workplaces today do not use a singular technique. For example, when the Best Buy organization shifted to a results-only workplace model, where productivity rather than hours logged at the office determined one's performance rating, the model (which allowed telecommuting) was arrived at in a developmental fashion by managers, working together. It began in one department, and slowly spread throughout the organization.

"It was only this past summer [in 2006] that CEO Anderson got a full briefing, and total understanding, about what was happening. 'We purposely waited until the tipping point before we took it to him,' said one of its architects of ROWE (Breaking the clock, 2006, Business Week). However,.