Theoretical foundations, contributions, and practical implications

Theoretical Foundation
The basis of this research is contingency theory. Contingency theory suggests leadership effectiveness depends mostly on situational variables. Personality and other subjective measures can be considered contingencies. Likewise, emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence are all contingency variables that can impact leadership effectiveness. Leadership experience is also a contingency, which is why prior experience can be a variable mitigating leadership effectiveness. As Boyatzis, Good & Massa (2012) point out, emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence have been ignored or overlooked in research on leadership effectiveness, and the multiple types of intelligences are only recently being investigated within the province of contingency theory.
Contingency theory examines the “external and internal constraints that will alter what really is the best way to lead is in a given situation,” (Flinsch-Rodriguez, 2017, p. 1). Because emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence are all requisite for effectively responding to situational variables including crises or miscommunication, intelligence measures can be accurately considered the exact types of contingencies that impact leadership. The genesis of contingency theory can be traced to the middle of the 20th century and to Fred Fiedler, who developed Contingency Trait Theory and subsequently, Contingency Management Theory. Fiedler remained more concerned with traits as psychological measures than with intelligence (cognitive, emotional, or social). However, Fiedler’s analyses established a firm theoretical foundation that researchers can use to investigate the factors most predictive of leadership effectiveness. Rather than ascribe to universal rules for how organizations should be run, leaders are most effective when they know how to respond to surprises, crises, and inconveniences. How a leader reacts to the particular demands of each position, each organization, and each environment determine effectiveness. Both specific competencies and general intelligence will impact leadership performance outcomes, according to a contingency theory framework.
Contribution to Theory
This research will contribute to the mounting body of evidence in management contingency theory, coupled with evidence more specifically in emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and social intelligence. Boyatzis, Good & Massa (2012) investigated the connection between generalized intelligence and leadership effectiveness from a contingency theory framework. I build on this research by altering the means of measuring leadership effectiveness and performance outcomes, and also by introducing an additional contingency variable: leadership experience. Contingency theory research has changed considerably over the past fifty years, generating a substantial but often inconclusive or even contradictory body of information. “Research over the past four decades has come up with an extended list of possibly significant contingencies that are faced by organizations, many of which suggest conflicting recommendations,” (Otley, 2016, p. 2). It has therefore become difficult for organizations to determine which features, traits, or intelligence measures to look for when hiring personnel, especially leaders instrumental in determining the fate of the organization. Otley (2016) recommends researching contingencies in a more dynamic context, using process-based modeling for the most accurate results. Although this research will not necessarily use a process-based methodology, it will contribute to the growing and evolving body of literature that can be of tremendous help to researchers and organizations.
Introducing the intervening variable of leadership experience also makes this research unique, contributing to contingency theory in a meaningful way. Usually, leadership contingencies are measured by the interplay of psychosocial variables like personality, culture, or communication style and leadership performance outcomes or organizational performance outcomes. This research introduces an additional element of experience to suggest that either experience impacts emotional, cognitive, and social intelligence, or that experience impacts the skills-based competencies required to succeed as a leader in a specific situation. Using a subjective measure of leadership effectiveness also contributes to the growing body of evidence in contingency theory because using quantitative measures like firm profitability has proven ineffective and unreliable in prior research (Otley, 2016). Leadership is itself a complex issue, and studying leadership effectiveness therefore demands complex, multimodal, and multifactorial analyses like this one.
Theoretical Implications
The implications of this research apply to both research and to practice, helping to evolve contingency theory research and also to promote evidence-based organizational practices. Experience has been shown to be a significant contingency variable determining leadership outcomes in virtual teams, with strong implications for future research and practice (Kayworth & Leidner, 2015). Cultural variables likewise impact leadership effectiveness, with implications for organizational culture (House, Javidan, Hanges & Dorfman, 2002). This research shows that intelligence variables including social, emotional, and cognitive intelligence, combined with experience, will impact leadership effectiveness. The implications of the research may impact human resources decisions, organizational policy, and organizational culture. Leadership experience is not typically examined as a variable in research on leadership effectiveness, and similarly not on research examining the overall effect of leadership intelligence on leadership effectiveness. Results of this research will draw attention to the interplay between different variables that may independently or collectively affect performance.
Leadership theory research has “grown exponentially” in the last decade, leading to dramatic changes to the academic study of organizational behavior, psychology, and a number of related fields (Dinh, Lord, Gardner, et al, 2013, p. 1). Increasingly, the “micro-processes” of leadership, which include contextual, situational, and other dynamic variables, are becoming important to the study of leadership effectiveness. However, leadership research is valuable insofar as it has practical applications that organizations can use to promote their goals and increase efficiency. This research enhances the ability for organizations to implement pragmatic and practical changes.
Practical Implications of the Research
The practical implications of this research include improving efficiency and cost-effectiveness in human resources practices, and informing organizational culture and policy. Also, this research will help inform curricula for leadership development programs, helping prospective leaders to develop the specific skills that they need to ensure success. The results of the research can also help show how members of a management team can work together and communicate better, given what they know of each others’ contingency factors like emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence. Situations requiring immediate and critical responses, such as acute organizational crises, can be dealt with better by assigning the right leader to the task, framing the issue in ways that are most appropriate to the individual. This research can also inform future studies, introducing additional variables like cultural constraints, or using different research methodologies. For example, House, Javidan, Hanges & Dorfman (2002) incorporated unique variables like leader acceptance into their model of leadership effectiveness and contingency theory.
The greatest practical application of research in leadership effectiveness and contingency theory is in the integrated realms of organizational culture, practice, and ethics. If emotional intelligence is linked with leadership effectiveness, then it becomes important to understand which specific features of emotional intelligence affect what type of effectiveness. Similarly, knowing that strong social intelligence is crucial for the success of a leader is not enough. Researchers and organizations need also to know what specific social skills are important in which types of scenarios. Communication in a dyad requires different sets of social skills and types of social intelligence versus communication in large groups or performance communication as with public speaking. Another area of practical application may be in creating organizational cohesion, or a sense of “organizational identity,” (Boyatzis, Good & Massa, 2012, p. 193). When leaders embody the organizational identity, they will theoretically serve as effective role models, also creating a collaborative working environment.
Leadership effectiveness cannot be accurately predicted on the basis of just one trait, as the earliest incarnations of contingency theory had suggested. As organizations realize the power of diversity in creating a more effective and productive work environment, and also in ensuring organizational success, it becomes important to cultivate leaders with diverse levels of experience, and diverse ranges of intelligence. High levels of cognitive intelligence are alone insufficient to predict strong or effective leadership, any more than high levels of emotional intelligence are alone sufficient. Knowing which types of intelligence affect specific performance outcomes will help organizations and leaders make careful and evidence-based decisions.



References

Boyatzis, R.E., Good, D. & Massa, R. (2012). Emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence and personality as predictors of sales leadership performance. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 19(2): 191-201.
Dinh, J.E., Lord, R.C., Gardner, W.L., et al (2013). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium. The Leadership Quarterly 2013: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005
Flinsch-Rodriguez, P. (2017). Contingency management theory. Business.com. Retrieved online: https://www.business.com/articles/contingency-management-theory/
House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P. & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe. Journal of World Business 37(2002): 3-10.
Kayworth, T.R. & Leidner, D.E. (2015). Leadership effectiveness in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Systems 18(3): 7-40.
Otley, D. (2016). The contingency theory of management accounting and control. Management Accounting Research (2016): https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-9516(01)00069-4.