Content uploaded by Ary Suharyanto
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ary Suharyanto on Sep 12, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
479
The Fall and Rise of The Contingency Theory of Leadership
Ary Suharyanto
Magister Public Policy and Management, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada
(email: arysuharyanto@mail.ugm.ac.id)
Rizky Dwi Lestari
Magister Public Policy and Management, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada
(email: rizky.d.l@mail.ugm.ac.id)
Abstract
This article aims to look at the development of The Contingency Theory of Leadership which
had developed in the 1970s, but declined in the 1990s, and has begun to be considered relevant
again in handling major crises in recent years, including Covid-19. The study used a
descriptive qualitative method to review the related literature. The Contingency Theory of
Leadership with the main approach to leadership appropriate depending on the
environmental situation that arises in the context of a particular action or behavior.
Discovered in 1964 by Fiedler, then expanded in 1970, slowly declining until the 2010s. The
number of catastrophes and major disasters in the world proves that the response of a leader
to a crisis that is considered successful is one that can adapt to the context and circumstances.
Some of the leader’s characters that are relevant in crises are Achieving Situational Awareness,
Adaptive Decision Making, Communication, Energy Management, and Learning. A crisis is
a situation that requires high leadership sensitivity. It takes a certain character that can help
with proper handling both before, during and after a crisis.
Keywords:
contingency; Covid-19; crisis; leadership
Introduction
Leadership is complex, there are many types of definitions and theories of leadership
in various literatures (Yukl, 1989; Rost, 1991; Lussier and Achua, 2007; and Northouse, 2016).
Leadership studies have a permissive and relativistic culture because the definition of an
expert is as great as any other definition, so that somewhere in the range of 1900 and 1990
there were in excess of 200 unique meanings of authority (Rost, 1991). Apart from the many
ways of conceptualizing, according to Northouse (2016) the concept of leadership basically
consists of a process, involves influence, happens in bunches, and includes common
objectives. During its development, leadership is studied in different ways so that it requires
different definitions (Yukl, 1989; Lussier and Achua, 2007). The definition of leadership has
480
also developed and changed along with the research trends that existed at that time (Yukl,
1989; Northouse, 2016). Several previous studies categorized various studies on leadership, as
well as to see the development of leadership theory from time to time. Yukl (1989) tries to
develop an understanding of leadership theory from the approach to traits, behavior, power,
and situational factors in the 1980s time period. Lowe and Gardner (2000) developed a
categorization of leadership theory based on the Trait, Behavioral, Contingency, Multiple-
Level Approaches, Leadership and Information Processing, Neo-Charismatic Approaches,
Other Prominent Approaches, New Directions in the 1990s. Gardner et al (2010) continued
and developed Lowe and Gardner's (2000) research for the 2000-2009 period and added the
Other approaches and New methods category. Meanwhile Dinh et al (2014) expanded the
scope of use by Gardner et al (2010) and limited the time period from 2000 to 2012.
The Contingency Theory of Leadership is a leadership theory that was coined in 1964
and developed until the 1970s (Yukl, 1989). This theory was coined by Fiedler (1964) who was
triggered by his anxiety over the existence of leadership effects in certain situations that could
not be explained by previous leadership theories, which were mostly based on trait and
behavioral paradigms (Vroom and Jago, 2007; Hernandez et al, 2011). As researchers develop
interest in other leadership theories that also adapt to world developments that have begun
to implement the NPM paradigm, interest in The Contingency Theory of Leadership has
decreased (Yukl, 1989; Lowe and Gardner, 2000; Wart, 2013), this continued until the 2010s
(Hernandez et al, 2011). Various disasters and major calamities in the world in recent years
have invited several studies on the success of handling the crisis, the results of which have led
to the relevance of The Contingency Theory of Leadership in certain situations (Hemmer and
Elliff, 2019; Keen et al, 2020). So that the reason of this study is, to begin with, to see how the
Contingency Theory of Leadership was created, developed, plummeted and re-developed.
Second, to provide an overview of the relevance of The Contingency Theory of Leadership in
crisis situations. Third, provide an overview of the character of The Contingency Theory of
Leadership which is again relevant to crisis situations such as the Covid-19 pandemic. The
three objectives will be answered with research questions: a) What is the background of the
birth of The Contingency Theory of Leadership ?; b) How is the development of The
Contingency Theory of Leadership ?; c) How is the relevance of The Contingency Theory of
481
Leadership in a crisis situation ?; d) What are the characters of The Contingency Theory of
Leadership that are relevant to handling situations during a crisis?
The Contingency Theory of Leadership
The Contingency Theory of Leadership was first put forward by Fred E. Fiedler (1964)
in an article entitled A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness. The basis of the
approach to The Contingency Theory of Leadership is that the right type of leadership
depends on the environmental situation that arises in the context of a particular action or
behavior (Saha, 1979). According to Hernandez et al (2011), the emergence of the contingency
theory approach in the 1960s and 1970s was an attempt to define the effects of leadership and
explain more variations on the effectiveness of leaders that take into account situational
factors more precisely. Leadership theory developed previously is usually based on a
paradigm derived from traits, especially for the 1900s and behavioral for the 1930s (Vroom
and Jago, 2007; Hernandez et al, 2011). Fiedler (1964) attempted to clarify that task-oriented
leaders are more viable in exceedingly favorable or exceedingly unfavorable circumstances,
whereas relationship-oriented leaders are more compelling in tolerably favorable
circumstances, so that certain authority styles will be more successful depending on the
circumstance in which they are set, not over time and circumstance.
In line with Fiedler (1964), House (1971) also proposed The Path Goal Theory which is
included in the contingency theory group. This theory focuses on situational moderators on
leader effectiveness. House (1971) developed this theory based on Vroom's (1964) theory of
expectation motivation which in substance proposes that individuals are more likely to lock
in in certain behaviors in the event that they see a tall probability that the behavior will lead
to compensated results. Saha (1979) further explains the development of The Contingency
Theory of Leadership, that Osborn (1975) in Saha (1979) broadens the applicable scope with
the adaptive-reactive theory of leadership which sees “macro” variables that are rarely
considered in a leadership approach. The "macro" variable consists of characteristics such as
external environment, organizational size, technology, and various aspects of the
organizational structure. Furthermore, Levine (1975) in Saha (1979) shows that leadership
should not be conceptualized only as adaptive-reactive, but also proactive and
entrepreneurial. The Contingency Theory of Leadership has proven to be one of the most valid
482
and reliable measures of individual leadership potential (Waters, 2013). This variety of
evidence, makes experts admit that the context of the situation affects the effectiveness of a
leader.
Methods
This research uses descriptive qualitative method by examining various relevant
literature. We base the assumption of decreasing or increasing development of leadership
theory, in this particular case The Contingency Theory of Leadership, in the article of Yukl
(1989); Lowe and Gardner (2000); Hernandez et al (2011); and Dinh et al (2014). The next
discussion will be divided into three parts. First, we will describe the development of The
Contingency Theory of Leadership from time to time to get an idea of how the interest of
researchers rises and falls. Second, we will describe the meaning and relationship of
leadership, crisis, and contingency in order to get an idea of the relevance of the three. Third,
we will describe the results of a study on research related to leadership during the major crisis
of the last few years to get an idea of what kind of leadership character is needed during the
crisis, including the current Covid-19.
Results and Discussion
The Journey of The Contingency Theory of Leadership
The Contingency Theory of Leadership is a marriage between social psychology and
management science that was popularly practiced in the late 1960s and 1970s (Rost, 1991).
Fiedler (1964) built The Contingency Theory of Leadership with the hypothesis that
leadership is generally considered an interpersonal circumstance in which one person in a
gather has impact over another for the reason of performing a given assignment. Therefore, it
is very important to know whether the group environment / situation will make it easier or
more difficult for the leader to influence his group members. Fiedler (1964) contended that
task-oriented leaders are more viable in exceedingly favorable or profoundly unfavorable
circumstances, whereas relationship-oriented leaders are more compelling in tolerably
favorable situations. This is supported by Fiedler and Chemers (1974) in Saha (1979), that The
Contingency Theory of Leadership tries to coordinate people with suitable circumstances
based on person authority styles. This means that in certain or abnormal circumstances (either
483
above or below), effective leadership is one that is able to adapt or adapt to the situation at
hand. An abnormal situation, more precisely above normal, was a crisis.
The development of leadership theory from time to time also causes a paradigm shift
in researchers with the times. According to Yukl (1989), leadership theory with a basic
situational concept (including The Contingency Theory of Leadership) is still developing, but
it tends to move backward from extreme situationism to a more balanced theoretical
perspective. Based on the identification of leadership theory over the last 100 years by
Hernandez et al (2011), The Contingency Theory of Leadership developed in the 1960s to
1970s in an endeavor to more accurately characterize authority impacts and clarify more
varieties in experimental thinks about of adequacy. leader. Lowe and Gardner (2000)
examined the development of leadership theory research in the 1990-1999 period. According
to Lowe and Gardner (2000), The Contingency Theory of Leadership is still in the rankings of
the most publications in LQ, but it seems that the appeal of the contingency approach that
was previously studied in leadership research in the 1960s and 1970s is fading, and with Trait
Theories and Behavioral Theories have decreased in frequency of publication as the neo-
charismatic paradigm increases.
A study of the development of leadership theory for the period 2000-2009 conducted
by Gardner et al (2010) concluded that research that focuses on traditional leadership theories,
including The Contingency Theory of Leadership, has continued to decline in publication.
Gardner et al (2010) revealed that the decline was one of the largest from 12% to only 1%. This
result is supported by Dinh et al (2014). The decline in publication interest in certain theories,
according to Reichers and Schneider (1990) in Lowe and Gardner (2000) could be because
these theories have reached a mature stage in construction development. According to Dinh
et al (2014), the leadership theory group that was developing at that time included Ethical /
Moral Leadership Theories, especially Servant leadership theory which, according to (Eva et
al, 2019), increased significantly. This shift occurs in line with the increasing trend in the world
of leadership which is expected to meet the demands of the New Public Management (NPM)
and Good Governance paradigm where the leadership model is deemed appropriate.
The latest developments in leadership theory, especially with the many crises in the
form of natural disasters, terrorism, and finally the Covid-19 pandemic, the world is again
reminded of the need for effective leaders during a crisis, not just how to bring an organization
484
more advanced and developing. Regarding the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, for
example, various studies have compared how state leaders deal with the pandemic in their
region, for example those conducted by Keen et al (2020) and Dirani et al. (2020). Crisis
situations are realized to be different from normal situations, so the handling and how a leader
overcomes a crisis is also different. So that The Contingency Theory of Leadership becomes
relevant again for discussion.
Leadership, Contingency, and Crisis
The definition of leadership can be complex and there is no single agreement (Rost,
1991; Waters, 2013; Northouse, 2016). During the period 1900 - 1990 there were more than 200
different definitions of leadership (Rost, 1991). Northouse (2016) defines leadership as a
process where an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve common goals. The
word "contingency" literally means a situation that is still shrouded in uncertainty and is
beyond reach (KBBI, 2020). Fiedler (1964) revealed that The Contingency Leadership Theory
tries to match individuals with appropriate situations based on the individual's leadership
style. This means that in certain or abnormal circumstances (either above or below), effective
leadership is one that is able to adapt or adapt to the situation at hand. An abnormal situation,
more precisely above normal, was a crisis.
Smiar (1992: 149) in Hemmer and Elliff, 2019 defines a crisis as "when we, literally, not
ourselves and the world around us really changes". Crises are characterized by low
probability / high consequence events that threaten the most basic goals of an organization
(Weick, 1988). In other literature there is a difference between crises and extreme conditions.
Agreeing to Hannah et al (2009), an extraordinary may be a circumstance that undermines a
sudden tall need objective with small or no reaction time, characterized by uncertainty of
cause, impact, and implies of determination where the danger comes to the limit where the
objective (for illustration, life or safety) not as it were has tall need but is additionally critical.
Hannah et al (2009) also offer a model in assessing a condition that can be called extreme in
five dimensions, namely Location in time / temporal ordering, Magnitude and probability of
consequences, proximity, and attenuators and intensiers. Until now, the Covid-19 Pandemic
has entered its 9th month if calculated since the first time WHO decided that Covid-19 had
become a pandemic on March 11, 2020 (WHO, 2020) and had infected more than 50 million
485
people and killed more than 1.2 million people worldwide (worldometer.info). Meanwhile,
on the economic side, the IMF estimates that world economic growth will contract by -4.4%,
an unprecedented condition (imf.org). So based on the model presented by Hannah et al
(2009), the Covid-19 pandemic can be categorized as an extreme crisis condition.
Various studies on The Contingency Theory of Leadership have shown valid evidence
of leadership effectiveness for certain individuals in certain situations (Taormina, 2008;
Waters, 2013)). In any case, most critically for the consider of administration, The Contingency
Theory of Leadership contends that leaders ought to not be anticipated to lead in each
circumstance which organizations ought to attempt to put leaders in ideal circumstances
(Finkelstein et al, 2008 in Waters, 2013). This is as experienced by various countries in dealing
with the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, in a crisis situation, it can even be said to be extreme,
until now it is still unknown when it will end, certain leadership styles are only suitable for
situations in certain countries and cannot be generalized.
Leadership in Crisis
The need for leadership in times of crisis or even extreme is different from that of
normal times. Moilanen (2015) says that leadership and choice making are diverse in a
emergency from typical day-to-day operations. Leadership amid a disastrous occasion is
around managing with scenes of danger and instability, feelings, and inescapable results that
require prompt activity in a way that produces things return to ordinary (Boin and 't Hart,
2003; Rosenthal, Boin, and Comfort 2001 in Hemmer and Elliff, 2019). With the existence of
unusual conditions, or in Fiedler's (1964) sense are highly unfavorable situations, or macro
environmental factors as expressed by Osborn (1975) and Levine (1975) in Saha (1979), it can
be concluded that unusual leadership is needed. or leadership that adapts to the situation.
Next, we will outline leadership in crisis management in various worlds.
Hemmer and Elliff (2019) examined leadership in handling Typhoon Harvey Texas.
The result of their evaluation is that the region's shifting vulnerabilities in emergencies such
as storms put weight on leaders to arrange, think deliberately, and act fittingly when
circumstances unfurl. They must take advantage of positive openings and oversee negative
dangers and be done utilizing tactile, specialized and versatile work. Dirani et al (2020)
examined leadership in relation to human resource management during the Covid-19
486
pandemic. According to Dirani et al (2020), the government, communities and organizations
are right now in emergency mode and are looking for direction from their leaders. It is time
for genuine leader to assist frameworks and people overcome confinements and fears and
progress their execution. The discoveries that can be underlined are that in times of emergency
like this, administration must alter the conditions by promptly understanding the
circumstance and reacting to it depending on intuitive and polished skill.
The Covid-19 pandemic has undoubtedly been one of the greatest crises in human
history (Loayza and Pennings, 2020). Leadership in various countries has taught that in
dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, certain leadership styles are only suitable for
situations in certain countries. Various literature has also documented the response of
governments around the world in dealing with pandemics with how politicians, related
institutions and local governments make policies that actually destroy each other (Maor, 2020;
Carter & May, 2020; in Ciqi May, 2020) and the style of national government policies. which
is adaptive to the situation that occurs serves to reconcile mutually destructive policy conflicts,
especially how the leadership of the top leadership of the State can determine the appropriate
national policy style in times of crisis.
China as the country of origin of the pandemic for three months was able to handle
the pandemic well, it was recorded that at the end of March 2020, China had succeeded in
controlling the spread of the pandemic with high-cost lockdown efforts in most of its main
cities, especially Wuhan (Zhang et al, 2020) using the style leadership which in the view of
some countries can be deemed to violate Human Rights (Kupferschmidt and Cohen, 2020).
Policies that are even called “brutal but effective” (Guardian.com) China's success is a
combination of the various steps taken by many policy actors, the top three chosen by 1000
respondents from an online survey of general population groups as the most important steps
in The handling of Covid 19 in China is a strict lockdown, assistance for Hubei province, as
well as the dismissal of the leaders of Wuhan City and Hubei Province, all three of which are
traditional instruments in the authoritarian State system in responding to the crisis and in
accordance with the state's authoritarian control of society (May, 2020) Although at the
beginning of the handling of the pandemic, China still maintained a system mechanism
known as "fragmented authoritarianism" (Lieberthal and Lampton (1992) in May 2020) where
the relationship between the central government and local governments only acts as ex ante
487
when policy objectives are made and ex post when assessments dila policy kukan, meaning
that the highest authority for handling the pandemic rests with the local government, but on
January 25 there was a turning point in the change in leadership style shown by Xi Jinping by
taking over directly openly and stating that 'I myself ordered and directed' (qinzi zhihui, qinzi
bushu) handling of covid-19, the fact is that the change in how to lead Xin Jinping directly
resulted in the role of the regional governments of Hubei and Wuhan being only pure
implementers (May, 2020) And since then Wuhan has implemented several extreme policy
steps. From the initial chaos that occurred in the handling of Covid 19 to the shift in policy
logic to a centralized leadership style was an important turning point in China's victory
against the pandemic (Hood & Lodge, 2006 in May, 2020) and this also changed the logic of
local governments from formulating, supervisory. and policy implementers become pure
executors who with all efforts must fulfill the objectives of central policies. So it can be said
that the accuracy of changing the leadership of the most important person in China is China's
greatest achievement in dealing with the spread of the pandemic.
The combination of policies that China has successfully pursued is not necessarily a
series of best efforts that can simply be transferred to other countries. Rather, it is a policy
combination befitting of China's authoritarian system featuring centralized leadership,
bureaucratic mobilization, and lessons learned by Cihna about successful policy combinations
in the previous crisis (May, 2020). Changes in leadership style to be centralized according to
the situation of the State of China. Similar to China, Vietnam, although not as "brutal" as China
in dealing with the pandemic, has also implemented various strict policies that have worked
well thanks to its authoritarian system of government (weforum.org).
When China as the primary nation to involvement the widespread took such
extraordinary steps to halt the spread, the nation has been emphatically criticized by the
Western world. But at that point fair many months afterward when the infection started to
spread quickly and claimed numerous casualties in western nations, leaders within the Joined
together States and Europe started to alter their sees and arrangements (Binagwaho, 2020)
including the leadership style used by China in dealing with the pandemic crisis.
America is starting to see how China is doing very well in dealing with the pandemic
and the US federal government is starting to try to change their policy viewpoint by
considering the lockdown strategy and indeed, when the initial phase of the pandemic
488
spreads the decision to lockdown was the policy of the central government. Because the best
way to prevent the spread is to limit the mobilization of people and keep them away from
each other because there was no best treatment at that time and a vaccine was not yet
available, and lockdowns are the optimal strategy in dealing with COVID-19 in the early
stages of the spread of the pandemic (Zhang et al. 2020).
That as it may, this step isn't something that's simple to actualize, be that as it may
since the starting President Donald Trump deliberately maintained a strategic distance from
appearing a clear part for the government government, the US government government
tended to be fractional in plans for a national lockdown or a territorial lockdown
(Atlantic.com, 2020) when President Trump attempted to alter his authority fashion by
straightforwardly managing with this widespread, checked by his ask to isolate the states of
Unused York, Unused Shirt and parts of Connecticut as an exertion to halt the spread of the
Covid 19 Infection, indeed some time recently the alter happened when this thought was
criticized by Unused York Senator Andrew Cuomo with said that the Government
Government does not have any specialist to uphold lockdowns, lockdowns are something
that China is doing and usually America (CNBC.com, 2020) it is illegal action and could be
prosecuted. This debate is the impact of the federal system of government adopted by the
United States, which is rooted in the “very ambiguous division of powers” at the heart of
American-style federalism, as argued (Kettl, 2020) and therefore the power of the federal
government in implementing direct policy. in the form of a limited lockdown, this causes the
federal government to become a weak guide and indeed a national strategy that was designed
to deal with a clear pandemic never existed, this is what makes the handling of the pandemic
in America directed individually by their respective states without an election basis strong
policies, finally the strategy in dealing with covid is returned to the ability of state leaders.
President Trump "leaves the job to the governor, and the nation stumbles under the
consequences" (Washington post in Kettl, 2020) the consequences that follow a successful
experiment by one state can be shared with other states and experiments that are not optimal
are discarded. . America shows a situation of great friction between the federal and state
governments that no other country has had before (Kettl, 2020), especially in the handling of
the Covid 19 pandemic. The description above explains that the authoritarian leadership style
in America is completely unacceptable in the country's situation. Until today, the United
489
States has recorded its failure to handle the pandemic and accounts for nearly 40 percent of
the total COVID-19 cases in the world along with Brazil (Global Times.com, 2020). Until the
present time, America has not discovered an initiative style that is generally fitting to
America's circumstance in managing the pandemic.
Whereas South Korea recorded another interesting phenomenon in handling the
pandemic, South Korea did not take extreme steps at all in efforts to deal with a pandemic
such as lockdowns by closing major cities or imposing severe travel restrictions, but both
reported low levels of pandemic spread (Zhang et al ,2020). The victory of South Korea is
frequently misjudged that the deciding figure for its victory is since South Korea carries out
dictator ways in which South Korean citizens are portrayed as having tall compliance and
surrendering to government control due to the leftovers of dictator run the show in 1970s and
1980s (Park et al, 2020).
In any case, on the opposite, South Korea taken care of the widespread with a totally
non-authoritarian authority fashion and instep coordinated its technique towards gigantic
tests in collaboration with private parties in Korea. The South Korean government is
leveraging cooperation with the private sector in the Public Private Partnership scheme to
increase the number of Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) tests exponentially.
With this PPP scheme, the South Korean government develop on Emergency Use Activation
(EUA) of Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) test-kits carried out and developed
by innovators from the In Vitro Diagnostics (IVD) industry of South Korea under the Law The
Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act (IDPCA) (Park et al, 2020).
There is something interesting in handling the pandemic, especially the leadership
carried out by Moon Jae In as the leader of South Korea, who is under threat of impeachment
which has been discussed as the best option if proven to fail in dealing with the pandemic,
but immediately President Moon Jae In was able to alter open conclusion radically to succeed
in winning the common decision once more in April 2020. This turning point is caused by the
leaders of the South Korean state with its law based government realizing and being mindful
of their destiny within the following race, so that they are forced to work well in emergency
administration, and in this way they turn to procedure which is speedier, to be specific
mobilizing open and private implies to win against the widespread (Park et al, 2020) This
situation that threatens the stability of this government is exploited by the South Korean
490
leader to pressure his government to work optimally by choosing the most likely strategy. can
be used in the country's situation, so that South Korea can achieve success with its unique
strategy of fighting the Covid 19 pandemic.
The above phenomena reinforce the relevance of The Contingency Theory of
Leadership in handling various crises, that the most appropriate leadership must be adapted
to the situation that occurs, certain leadership styles will only be successful in certain country
situations, and whenever applied to different nations whose circumstances are obviously
extraordinary, at that point the likelihood of disappointment will be incredible. The literature
from The Contingency Theory of Leadership has been able to show the impact of this situation
and enable researchers to predict the possible effectiveness of certain leadership in certain
situations (Taormina, 2008 in Richard D Waters, 2013). In any case, the foremost critical thing
for The Contingency Theory of Leadership in leadership studies is that you just ought to not
anticipate leaders to be able to lead in each circumstance and it is accurately the assignment
of the organization that must attempt to put the leaders in an ideal circumstance (Finkelstein,
2008 in Waters, 2013) so that his leadership achieve optimal success too. Be that as it may
nations that have fizzled in their administration due to their disappointment to evaluate the
circumstance, political disappointment or disappointment to moderate the widespread as a
danger have dispensed genuine misfortunes on their nations and the world, clearing out
numerous individuals to endure which this enduring can really be anticipated by great
authority ( Binagwaho, 2020). A crisis situation is indeed a big challenge for leadership studies
to determine what kind of leadership can survive the crisis and after the crisis.
Based on research on several crisis and extreme events in the world, Keen et al (2020),
Hemmer and Elliff (2019), and Goralnick et al. (2015) suggested things that must be done in
leadership, namely: first, Achieving Situational Awareness. Leaders must characterize their
current circumstance and reality, both inside the organization and remotely. Utilizing what
they know as truths, and what they accept to be genuine (suspicions), leaders must rapidly
create a need activity arrange. Leaders must regularly verbalize a vision and a arrange of
activity (procedure, objectives, strategies, and needs). Hemmer and Elliff (2019) add that
leaders must plan, think strategically, and act appropriately when situations unfold. Second,
Adaptive Decision Making. Amid a emergency, indeed the foremost working organizations
and groups discover out that their ordinary forms and hones for doing commerce cannot meet
491
the requests of current circumstances and modern substances. To succeed, they must adjust
some time recently making basic choices rapidly. In Haiti, after an seismic tremor, it is basic
to move rapidly to spare the lives of those buried beneath the rubble of the seismic tremor or
reach those who have suffered life-threatening wounds. Now and then, meaning we do not
have all the data we need, so we have to be work with deficient information or data. Hemmer
and Elliff (2019) include that authority in this delayed emergency is completely illustrated
through tangible creation and specialized and versatile work.
Third, Communication. Leaders ought to endeavor to communicate in a way that
addresses what the group of onlookers must listen - not fair what the leader needs to say. Such
an approach requires a profound understanding of desires of the target group of onlookers
and the hones that back this reason. Communicate essentially and clearly the "things to do" of
the circumstance inside a clear time outline - maintain a strategic distance from "great things
to do" and "great things to do". Clarify needs and rehash them frequently. Concurring to
Hemmer and Elliff (2019) leaders must work together and take advantage of their position to
decrease approach breakdown. Goralnick et al (2015) also stated that in crisis management an
effective communication strategy and information system were essential. Fourth, Energy
Management. As the COVID reaction creates, weariness will result. To avoid burnout and
oversee vitality for the long term, we advocate the center guideline simply must pay attention
of yourself so that you simply can see after your group. We suggest that you just "make a fight
beat," which permits you to function at a maintainable pace over time, Fifth, Learning. As well
frequently leaders who are submerged in emergency may come up short to keep in mind
every day authority lessons. To maintain a strategic distance from this trap, open wellbeing
experts have the one of a kind opportunity to act as "member eyewitnesses" by capturing and
sharing the many lessons learned from the COVID 19 widespread reaction. Another
leadership imperative is for leaders to instill learning forms and best hones to expect or
diminish probability. and end of the impacts of enduring. By doing so, leaders are able to
supply quick strategic reactions to emergencies whereas building long-term key capabilities.
Hemmer and Elliff (2019) include that leaders draw from schedule past encounters to assist
direct them through crises; However, they too ought to adjust and enhance, moreover
regularly utilizing offbeat approaches to tackling issues.
492
Conclusion
Leadership is complex, there are numerous sorts of definitions and speculations of
authority in different literary works (Yukl, 1989; Rost, 1991; Lussier and Achua, 2007; and
Northouse, 2016). Fiedler (1964) built The Contingency Theory of Leadership which tries to
coordinate people with suitable circumstances based on their administration fashion. This
theory could be a marriage between social brain research and management science that was
prevalently practiced within the late 1960s and 1970s (Rost, 1991). Concurring to Hernandez
et al (2011), the development of The Contingency Theory of Leadership within the 1960s and
1970s was an endeavor to characterize the effects of leadership and clarify more varieties on
the viability of leaders that take under consideration situational components more absolutely.
Leadership theory created already is ordinarily based on a worldview inferred from
characteristics particularly for the 1900s and behavioral for the 1930s (Vroom and Jago, 2007;
Hernandez et al, 2011).
The theory of leadership continues to develop from time to time, the paradigm of
researchers has also shifted over time. Results of the study According to Yukl (1989), Lowe
and Gardner (2000), Gardner et al (2010), Hernandez et al (2011), and Dinh et al (2014) The
Contingency Theory of Leadership since it was first coined in 1964 had experienced significant
development until the 1970s, then began to decline in the 1980s to 2010s. One of the reasons is
the development of the NPM paradigm which is followed by various leadership criteria that
are considered to support it (Wart, 2013). The latest developments with many crises in the
form of natural disasters, terrorism, and finally the Covid-19 Pandemic, the world is reminded
of the need for effective leaders during a crisis.
Crisis is defined as "when we are, literally, not ourselves and the world around us
actually changes" (Smiar, 1992: 149 in Hemmer and Elliff, 2019). If contingency is defined as a
situation that is still shrouded in uncertainty and is beyond reach (KBBI), then crisis is
included in that definition. Even further, Hannah et al (2009) provide a view of the bigger
crisis or what is called an extreme crisis. Various crises in the form of natural disasters,
terrorism, and the Covid-19 Pandemic which is said to be one of the greatest crises of all time
require unusual leadership, which is able to adapt to the conditions and situations at hand.
Hemmer and Elliff (2019), and Goralnick et al. (2015) suggest what must be done in leadership
in crisis situations, first, Achieving Situational Awareness, Leader must characterize their
493
current circumstance and reality, both inside and outside the organization. Second, Adaptive
Decision Making, amid a crisis, indeed the foremost working organizations and groups know
that their ordinary forms and hones for doing trade cannot meet the requests of current
circumstances and unused substances. Third, Communication, the Leader must endeavor to
communicate in a way that addresses what the gathering of people has to listen - not fair what
the leader needs to say. Fourth, Energy Management, leaders must take care of themselves
and the team by creating a crisis management rhythm. Fifth, Learning, earn from past
encounters and listen the conclusions of specialists in their areas.
References
Ayman, R., Chemers, M. M., & Fiedler, F. (1995). The contingency model of leadership
effectiveness: Its levels of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 147–167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90032-2
Binagwaho, A. (2020). We need compassionate leadership management based on evidence to
defeat COVID-19. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 9(10), 413–
414. https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2020.73
Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership
theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing
perspectives. Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36–62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005
Dirani, K. M., Abadi, M., Alizadeh, A., Barhate, B., Garza, R. C., Gunasekara, N., Ibrahim, G.,
& Majzun, Z. (2020). Leadership competencies and the essential role of human
resource development in times of crisis: a response to Covid-19 pandemic. Human
Resource Development International, 23(4), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2020.1780078
Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant
Leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. Leadership Quarterly,
30(1), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004
Fiedler, F. E. (1978). The Contingency Model and the Dynamics of the Leadership Process.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 11(C), 59–112.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60005-2
494
Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 1(C), 149–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-
2601(08)60051-9
Gardner, W. L., Lowe, K. B., Moss, T. W., Mahoney, K. T., & Cogliser, C. C. (2010). Scholarly
leadership of the study of leadership: A review of The Leadership Quarterly’s second
decade, 2000-2009. Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 922–958.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.003
Goralnick, E., Halpern, P., Loo, S., Gates, J., Biddinger, P., Fisher, J., Velmahos, G., Chung, S.,
Mooney, D., Brown, C., Barnewolt, B., Burke, P., Gupta, A., Ulrich, A., Hojman, H.,
McNulty, E., Dorn, B., Marcus, L., & Peleg, K. (2015). Leadership during the Boston
Marathon Bombings: A Qualitative After-Action Review. Disaster Medicine and
Public Health Preparedness, 9(5), 489–495. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2015.42
Gostin, Lawrence et al ( 2020, Maret 31) Why There’s No National Lockdown, Enforcing a
large-scale quarantine would be legally murky, even if it’s what the country needs to
slow the spread of the coronavirus. Theatlantic.dom Retrieved from
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/why-theres-no-national
lockdown/609127/
GT, staff reporters (2020) US, Brazil most 'failed' COVID-19 states. globaltimes.com Retrieved
from https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1192770.shtml
Hannah, S. T., Uhl-Bien, M., Avolio, B. J., & Cavarretta, F. L. (2009). A framework for
examining leadership in extreme contexts. Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 897–919.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.006
Hemmer, L., & Elliff, D. S. (2020). Leaders in action: The experiences of seven Texas
superintendents before, during, and after Hurricane Harvey. Educational
Management Administration and Leadership, 48(6), 964–985.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219873073
Hernandez, M., Eberly, M. B., Avolio, B. J., & Johnson, M. D. (2011). The loci and mechanisms
of leadership: Exploring a more comprehensive view of leadership theory. Leadership
Quarterly, 22(6), 1165–1185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.009
House, R. J. (1971). Administrasi science quarterly. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3),
321–339. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2391905?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
495
imf.org (2020) https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/imf-and-covid19/Policy-Responses-to-
COVID-19
Keen, P. K., Gilkey, R., & Baker, E. L. (2020). Crisis leadership - From the Haiti earthquake to
the COVID pandemic. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 26(5), 503–
505. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000001207
Kettl, D. F. (2020). States Divided: The Implications of American Federalism for COVID-19.
Public Administration Review, 80(4), 595–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13243
Kimball, Spencer (2020) New York Gov. Cuomo says Trump has no authority to impose
quarantine: ‘It would be illegal’. CNBC.com Retrieved from
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/28/ny-gov-cuomo-says-trump-has-no-authority-to-
impose-quarantine.html
KBBI (2020) https://kbbi.web.id/kontingensi
weforum.org..2020.https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/vietnam-contain-covid-19-
limited-resources/
Lowe, K. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). Ten years of The leadership quarterly. The Leadership
Quarterly, 11(4), 459–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(00)00059-x
McMullin, C., & Raggo, P. (2020). Leadership and Governance in Times of Crisis: A Balancing
Act for Nonprofit Boards. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020964582
Mei, C. (2020). Policy style, consistency and the effectiveness of the policy mix in China’s fight
against COVID-19. Policy and Society, 39(3), 309–325.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2020.1787627
Moilanen, J. H. (2015). The Wisdom of Tacit Knowing-in-Action and Mission Command.
Adult Learning, 26(3), 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159515583258
Morhman, A. M. J., & Lawler, E. E. I. (1984). A Review of Theory and Research. In The
Information Systems Research Challenge: Proceedings of the Harvard Business School
Colloquium (pp. 135–164).
Newman, J. M., & Krzystofiak, F. . (1993). from the SAGE Social Science Collections . Rights
Reserved . The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
503(1), 122–136.
496
Park, J., & Chung, E. (2021). Learning from past pandemic governance: Early response and
Public-Private Partnerships in testing of COVID-19 in South Korea. World
Development, 137(April 2020), 105198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105198
Rost, J. (1991). Leadership an the twenty first centiry. In Journal of Chemical Information and
Modeling (Vol. 53).
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass A Wiley
Imprint.
Styles, M., Leadership, T., Traits, P., Styles, L., Models, L., Making, D., Culture, O., & Team,
M. (2010). AAGP Annual Meeting 2010. In The American Journal of Geriatric
Psychiatry (Vol. 18, Issue 3). https://doi.org/10.1097/01.jgp.0000369161.13792.ad
Kupferschmidt and Cohen. (2020). Can China’s COVID-19 strategy work elsewhere?. Science
Vol 367, Issue 6482 06 March 2020
Van Wart, M. (2013). Administrative leadership theory: A reassessment after 10 years. Public
Administration, 91(3), 521–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12017
Vroom, V. H., & Jaago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American
Psychologist, 62(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.17
Waters, R. D. (2013). The role of stewardship in leadership: Applying the contingency theory
of leadership to relationship cultivation practices of public relations practitioners.
Journal of Communication Management, 17(4), 324–340.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-05-2012-0041
Weick, E. (1988). Enacted Sensemaking in Crisis Situations. July.
WHO (2020) ww.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s -opening-
remarks-at-th e-mission-briefing-on-covid-19---12-march-2020
Zhang, X., Ji, Z., Zheng, Y., Ye, X., & Li, D. (2020). Evaluating the effect of city lock-down on
controlling COVID-19 propagation through deep learning and network science
models. Cities, 107(June), 102869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102869
