Strategic Business Leader · Qualities of leadership

Contingency and Situational Leadership Theories for ACCA SBL

Updated 11 October 2026 · Fact-checked

Contingency and situational leadership models say no single leadership style works everywhere. The best style depends on the situation. Fiedler matches leader style to situational favourableness. Hersey and Blanchard match style to follower readiness. Adair balances task, team and individual needs. In SBL, diagnose the scenario, then recommend a fitting style.

Understand Contingency and Situational Leadership

Early leadership theory looked for the one best leader or the one best style. Trait theories asked who leaders are. Behavioural theories asked what leaders do. Both struggled, because the same leader can succeed in one setting and fail in another. Contingency and situational models start from this point: effectiveness depends on fit between the leader, the followers and the situation.

The words are often used loosely, and examiners rarely penalise this. A useful distinction: contingency theories (Fiedler) treat the leader's style as fairly fixed, so you change the situation or change the leader. Situational theories (Hersey and Blanchard) treat the leader as flexible, so the leader changes style to suit the followers. Say this clearly if a question asks you to compare them.

Fiedler's contingency model classes leaders as task-oriented or relationship-oriented. Fiedler measured this with the Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) scale. A leader who describes their least preferred co-worker harshly is task-oriented. One who describes them kindly is relationship-oriented. Favourableness of the situation depends on three factors: leader-member relations (trust and respect), task structure (clear or vague), and position power (formal authority to reward and punish). Task-oriented leaders tend to do best in very favourable or very unfavourable situations. Relationship-oriented leaders tend to do best in moderate situations. If the leader's style already fits the situation, the model predicts effectiveness and does not call for change. Changing the situation is only a Fiedler prescription when the fit is poor.

Hersey and Blanchard's situational leadership matches style to follower readiness (also called maturity or development level), which combines ability and willingness. There are four readiness levels and four styles. Telling (directing) is high task, low relationship. It suits R1: followers who are unable and unwilling. Selling (coaching) is high task, high relationship. It suits R2: followers who are unable but willing. Participating (supporting) is low task, high relationship. It suits R3: followers who are able but unwilling or insecure. Delegating is low task, low relationship. It suits R4: followers who are able and willing. As followers develop, the leader moves from telling towards delegating.

Adair's action-centred leadership says a leader must manage three overlapping needs: task (achieve the objective), team (build and maintain the group) and individual (develop and motivate each person). Neglecting one hurts the others. Adair is a functional model: it describes what leaders must do, and it is often used with the situational models to judge where a leader's attention is out of balance.

Key rules to remember

Fiedler: three situational variables: Favourableness = leader-member relations + task structure + position power; Good relations, structured task and strong position power make the situation most favourable. Poor on all three makes it least favourable.
Fiedler: style-to-situation fit: Task-oriented → best in high or low favourableness; Relationship-oriented → best in moderate favourableness; A tendency from Fiedler's research, not a law. Present it as the model's claim.
Hersey and Blanchard: readiness to style: R1 (unable and unwilling) → Telling; R2 (unable but willing) → Selling; R3 (able but unwilling or insecure) → Participating; R4 (able and willing) → Delegating; Readiness means ability plus willingness. Style is a mix of task behaviour and relationship behaviour.
Adair's three circles: Task + Team + Individual; The circles overlap. Action in one affects the other two.
Contingency vs situational: Contingency: fit leader to situation. Situational: leader adapts style to followers.; Use this to answer comparison questions.

How to solve Contingency and Situational Leadership questions

Use this method for any SBL question asking you to assess, recommend or criticise a leadership approach in a scenario.

1Read the requirement and note the verb: assess, recommend, evaluate or compare. This sets the depth of your answer.
2Pick the model that fits the facts. Focus on follower skill and willingness points to Hersey and Blanchard. Focus on leader style, task clarity and authority points to Fiedler. Focus on a balance of goals, group and people points to Adair.
3State the model briefly in one or two sentences. Do not write a textbook definition.
4Diagnose the scenario with evidence. Quote or paraphrase facts: team experience, deadlines, trust levels, the leader's behaviour.
5Judge the fit. Say whether the current style matches the situation and explain the consequences, for example demotivation, errors or delays.
6Recommend a specific action: change style, develop the followers, restructure the task or change the leader. Link it to the organisation's objectives.
7Add a limitation or a link to another model, such as culture or national context. This earns analysis and commercial acumen credit.
8Check that your answer is written for the stated reader, for example the board or the CEO, in the stated format.

Quickest way: Diagnose, Match, Recommend

When to use it: Use when time is short and you need a structured answer to a leadership requirement in a few minutes.

Underline the clues in the scenario: follower experience, task clarity, leader authority, relationships.
Name one model and give the diagnosis in one line, for example: followers are unable but willing (R2), so Selling fits.
Compare with what the leader actually does and state the mismatch.
Give one or two practical recommendations.
Close with one limitation of the model to show judgement.

Common mistakes in Contingency and Situational Leadership

Writing out the model from memory without applying it to the scenario.
Students feel safe reciting theory they have learned.
Fix: Spend at most a quarter of your answer on theory. Tie every point to a named fact in the case.
Mixing up Hersey and Blanchard's styles, for example calling high task and low relationship 'Participating'.
The four labels look similar and students learn them as a list, not as a grid.
Fix: Learn the grid: Telling is high task, low relationship. Selling is high on both. Participating is low task, high relationship. Delegating is low on both.
Saying Fiedler's leader should simply change style.
Students blend Fiedler with situational theory.
Fix: Fiedler treats style as fixed. Recommend changing the situation (clarify tasks, boost position power) or replacing the leader.
Treating Adair's circles as separate and independent.
Diagrams are remembered as three labelled circles only.
Fix: Stress that they overlap. Over-focusing on the task can damage team morale and individual motivation.
Applying a model without judging whether the leader's style is the problem.
Students assume the model must show a fault.
Fix: Test the fit first. If the style already matches the situation, say so and look at other causes such as structure or culture.
Ignoring the professional skills marks and writing in a generic essay style.
Students focus on technical content.
Fix: Use the required format, address the named reader, give a clear recommendation and show scepticism about the model's limits.

Worked examples

Example 1

Zenith Logistics has promoted a top driver, Arun, to depot manager. His team is new, keen but inexperienced. Arun gives them broad goals and leaves them to get on with it. Errors and missed deliveries have risen. Using Hersey and Blanchard's model, assess Arun's approach and recommend what he should do.

Show the solution

Model: Hersey and Blanchard match leadership style to follower readiness, which is ability plus willingness.
Diagnose the followers: the team is new and inexperienced, so ability is low. They are keen, so willingness is high. They are unable but willing, which is R2.
Diagnose Arun's style: broad goals and little involvement is Delegating, low task and low relationship behaviour. This suits R4, able and willing followers.
Judge the fit: there is a clear mismatch. Delegating to a team lacking skills explains the rising errors and missed deliveries.
Recommend: move to Selling, which is high task and high relationship. Give clear instructions, standard procedures and delivery targets. Explain the reasons and give regular feedback and encouragement because the team is keen. Use Telling only for any individuals who lack motivation.
Plan the transition: as skills grow, Arun should move to Participating and later Delegating. Add training so readiness rises.
Limitation: the model assumes one readiness level per team. Individuals in the team may differ, so Arun may need to vary his approach.

Answer: Arun uses Delegating, which suits R4 followers who are able and willing. His team is unable but willing (R2), so Selling fits. He should give direction, feedback and encouragement now, use Telling only for any individual who lacks motivation, invest in training, and move gradually towards Participating and Delegating as the team develops.

Example 2

Harbour Retail's new regional head, Meera, prefers to focus on hitting sales targets. She scores low on a Fiedler LPC-type questionnaire, so she is task-oriented. Her relations with store managers are strained, the sales process is loosely defined and she has limited authority over store budgets. Using Fiedler's model, assess her likely effectiveness and advise the CEO.

Show the solution

Model: Fiedler says effectiveness depends on fit between the leader's fixed style and the favourableness of the situation.
Leader style: a low LPC score means task-oriented.
Situation: leader-member relations are poor, task structure is vague and position power is weak. All three are unfavourable, so the situation is very unfavourable.
Fit: Fiedler's research suggests task-oriented leaders do best in very favourable or very unfavourable situations. So Meera's style fits this situation, and the model predicts she can be effective.
Caution: this is a tendency, not a guarantee. Strained relations may still cause store managers to resist, so results may be limited.
Recommend: because the fit is good, Fiedler's model does not call for changing the situation or the leader. The CEO should keep Meera in the role and monitor results.
Beyond the model: if results disappoint, look for other causes, such as store manager resistance, culture or the loosely defined sales process. These are not Fiedler prescriptions.

Answer: Meera is task-oriented and faces a very unfavourable situation, where Fiedler predicts task-oriented leaders can perform well. Her style fits, so the model predicts she can be effective and needs no change. The CEO should keep her in post and monitor results. If performance is weak, the CEO should look at causes beyond Fiedler, such as culture or resistance from store managers.

Exam tips

Choose the model that matches the clues. Do not use all three models in every answer. One well-applied model scores better than three shallow ones.
Always include a limitation, such as Fiedler's rigidity, Hersey and Blanchard's simple readiness measure or the lack of cultural context in all three.
Link leadership style to other parts of the case such as culture, change or strategy. SBL rewards integrated answers.
Use Adair as a quick diagnostic: ask which of task, team or individual the leader has neglected.
Make a clear recommendation. Examiners want a judgement, not just a description.

Practice questions from Qualities of leadership

Contingency and Situational Leadership in other exams

The same ground in other exams, if you are preparing for more than one or want another angle on it.

CMA FoundationTheories of Leadership

Contingency and Situational Leadership: frequently asked questions

What is the difference between situational and contingency leadership?

Contingency theories such as Fiedler's assume a leader's style is fairly fixed, so you match the leader to the situation or change the situation. Situational theories such as Hersey and Blanchard's say the leader should adapt style to follower readiness. Both agree that no single style is best.

How do I remember Hersey and Blanchard's four styles?

Think of a grid of task behaviour and relationship behaviour. Telling is high task and low relationship. Selling is high on both. Participating is low task and high relationship. Delegating is low on both. Move across as followers become more ready.

Is Adair's model a contingency model?

Adair's action-centred leadership is usually described as a functional model, as it lists what leaders must do: achieve the task, build the team and develop individuals. It is often used alongside situational models, because the right balance of the three needs varies with the situation.

How are these models tested in SBL?

They appear as part of a larger scenario task, usually asking you to assess a leader's approach or advise on a better one. You must apply the model to case facts and make a recommendation. Pure theory answers score poorly.