The Contingency School of Management

By the 1960s, each earlier school of management thought had its own answer to how managers should work. Taylor’s followers backed scientific management. Mayo’s followers backed human relations. Maslow’s followers backed meeting psychological needs. Each could point to evidence that their approach worked, but none could explain why the same approach sometimes failed. The Contingency School proposed that all the earlier approaches were partly right and that what determined which one fit was the situation.

The core idea

The Contingency School rests on a simple but powerful claim:

What managers do depends on or is contingent on the situation at hand; it emphasises an “if-then relationship”. If a particular situational variable exists, then managers are likely to take a particular action.

There is no universally best management approach. The best approach for any given situation depends on the variables present in that situation. The job of the manager is to read the situation accurately and choose the approach that fits.

This was a major shift. The earlier schools had each been searching for “the best way”. The Contingency School said the search was pointless. There is no single best way. There are appropriate ways for specific situations.

The three key theorists

Three contingency theorists are named in the handout. Each looked at a different variable that affects what works in an organisation.

John Woodward (1965)

John Woodward, a British researcher, studied manufacturing firms and looked at the relationship between technology and organisational structure. Her book Industrial Organisation: Theory and Practice argued that the technology a firm used (small-batch, mass production, or continuous process) determined what kind of structure worked best.

For a school: the technology and method of teaching shape what kind of organisation works. A school running self-paced individualised learning needs a different structure than a school running large lecture-based classes. There is no universal best school structure.

P. Lawrence and J.W. Lorsch (1967)

Lawrence and Lorsch, working at Harvard Business School, studied firms in different industries and found that successful organisations matched their structure to the nature of their environment. Their book Organisation and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration presented a unified, open-systems approach.

For a school: a school in a stable environment can run with a simple structure. A school in a fast-changing environment (a new curriculum being rolled out, a competitive neighbourhood, technology disrupting everything) needs more differentiation between functions and stronger integration between them. There is no universal best structure for all schools; the right structure depends on the environment the school operates in.

Fred Fiedler (1967)

Fred Fiedler proposed a contingency theory of leadership. His book A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness argued that leadership effectiveness was contingent on two interacting factors: the leader’s style and the favourableness of the situation. A task-oriented leader will succeed in certain situations and fail in others; the same is true for a relationship-oriented leader. The match between style and situation matters more than the style itself.

For a school: the right principal for one school is not the right principal for another. A school in turnaround needs a different leadership style than a school in steady-state. A leader who tries to apply her natural style in every situation, without adjusting, will succeed in some schools and fail in others.

The if-then logic

The signature of contingency thinking is if-then reasoning. Every general claim is conditioned on a situational variable.

Examples of if-then statements in school management:

1. If the staff is highly experienced, then a more participative leadership style produces better results.
2. If the staff is new and inexperienced, then more direct guidance and structure produces better results.
3. If the school is in steady state, then incremental improvement is the right approach.
4. If the school is in turnaround, then bolder change is needed.
5. If the curriculum is stable, then standardised lesson plans work well.
6. If the curriculum is changing, then teacher autonomy and adaptation matter more.

Contingency thinking does not say one of these is true and one is false. It says each is true under its own conditions.

The three challenges with contingency

The Contingency School is honest about its own difficulties. The handout names three:

Perceiving organisational situations as they actually exist. Choosing the management tactics best suited to those situations. Competently implementing those tactics.

Perceiving

The first challenge is reading the situation accurately. A new principal may misread the staff as inexperienced when actually they are experienced and disengaged. The contingency approach to a misread situation produces the wrong response.

Honest perception is hard. It requires asking the staff, asking the parents, asking the data, before deciding what kind of school this is. Many leadership failures begin in misperception.

Choosing

The second challenge is choosing the right approach for the situation as actually perceived. Even a manager who reads the situation well may pick the wrong tool. Knowing many approaches is necessary but not sufficient; matching approach to situation is its own skill.

Implementing

The third challenge is competent execution. A manager who reads the situation right and chooses the right approach can still implement it badly. A school head who decides on a participative approach but does it half-heartedly produces neither the benefits of participation nor the benefits of direction.

All three have to be right. Contingency management is not a relaxation of rigour; it is rigour applied to a wider question.

What contingency thinking gives a school today

Three practical takeaways.

1. Stop looking for the one best approach. A principal who keeps searching for “the right way to lead” is asking the wrong question. The right question is “what is this situation, and what approach fits it?”
2. Develop multiple styles. A leader who only has one style will only fit one kind of situation. Multiple styles cover more ground.
3. Read before acting. Time spent diagnosing the situation, especially in the first months of a new role, pays off. A leader who acts before reading often acts wrongly.

A school principal who has learned to apply contingency thinking sounds different in conversation. She says “in this situation” more than “in general”. She names variables. She adjusts her approach when conditions change. She does not promise that a method that worked at her previous school will work at the new one without modification.

Flashcard

What is the core claim of the Contingency School, and what does it mean for a school leader?

Tap to reveal

Answer

The right management approach depends on the situation. No one-size-fits-all.

The if-then logic: if a particular situational variable exists, then a particular action is likely to work. For a school leader, this means:

1. Stop looking for the one best leadership style or management approach.
2. Develop multiple styles so you can fit different situations.
3. Read the situation carefully before acting; misperception leads to wrong response.
4. Accept that what worked in one school may not work in another.

A leader fluent in contingency thinking is comfortable saying “in this situation” and adjusts her approach as conditions change.

Why this is the natural endpoint of the evolution

The earlier schools, Classical, Neoclassical, Behavioural, Modern, each added something useful to management thinking. They also each over-claimed in some way. Taylor’s followers thought scientific management was the answer to everything. Mayo’s followers thought human relations was. Maslow’s followers thought meeting needs was. The Modern School thought measurement and systems were.

The Contingency School relativises all of these. Each of them is right for some situations and wrong for others. The job of the manager is not to pick one school and apply it everywhere, but to read the situation and pick the school whose insights fit.

This is also the practical position most working managers actually take, once they have enough experience. They know Taylor’s lessons about planning, Mayo’s lessons about attention, Maslow’s lessons about needs, and the Modern School’s lessons about systems. They use the right one when the situation calls for it.