This article is a high-level comparison of two basic concepts of traditional paradigm and alternative paradigm in relation to leadership. Primarily, paradigms refer to widely accepted beliefs, theories, patterns of life, or models to situations in real-life. These beliefs and concepts are often introduced by those who are perceived to be the intellectual members of the community, and they gain widespread recognition because of their effectiveness in explaining complex processes, ideas, or sets of data. Centre to this discussion is the traditional theory of patriarchy and the alternative theory of diversity. The alternative theory of diversity is not a unitary status, but it touches on many aspects such as culture, ethnicity, gender, class, and leadership ( Janssens & Zanoni, 2014) . Special attention is paid to the concept of contingency leadership as an element of diversity. This paper delves deeper into the two concepts and explains the detailed meanings embedded in their social adoption. In it, every unique feature of patriarchy and contingency theories are vividly elaborated and how the ever-evolving field of sociology has changed their meanings. Every society, from the ancient times when there was limited organization of society to the contemporary governments made up of complex units, there are leadership opinions that guide the members of the society on what they feel as good or bad leadership for them. Although the traditional societies were rooted in beliefs of male dominance and ultimately patriarchal leadership, times have changed and the modern society now embraces alternative paradigms to leadership, particularly staying open to the diversity of opinions.
Patriarchy
Patriarchy as a traditional paradigm references a social structure in which men are perceived to have the monopoly of power, and that women are expected to live under the rule of men in total submission ( Miller, 2014) . A patriarchal society is not limited to basic leadership units such as families, but it extends to the overall leadership system of an entire community such as organization heads and government officials. Thus, the patriarchal theory holds that the power to lead is a privilege entitled to the male gender by birthright, and which can only be withdrawn from one male to the other regardless of whether or not there is a more competent female that can take up that position. This has forced a wave of feminist socialists to expand the definition of patriarchy to mean a systematic bias against women in favor of their male counterparts ( Soman, 2009) . The whole idea of patriarchy was rooted in past societies due to the inherent beliefs that women had predefined domestic roles to play, and that leadership was not one of them. Some of these ideas are still held by some societies and organizations in the contemporary world.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Several theorists have come up to give meaning to the paradigm of patriarchy. Gerda Lerner and Sylvia Walby are two such theorists, whose works indicate that patriarchy has been a historical process that started in the Near East in as early as 3100BC ( Miller, 2017) . The paradigms developed progressively from one society to another, argued Lerner, and later it became a notion in the society that men had right that women did not. These theorists asserted that patriarchy had taken many forms, but the ideas that the man should rule over the woman remains embedded within. Worse still, these theorists note that very women hold patriarchal ideas against themselves-they believe that it is upon them to bear the brunt of childcare and housework within the confines of their homes.
The two principal components of patriarchy are gender roles and social constructionism ( Miller, 2017) . Gender roles define a set of social and behavioral standards that are generally assumed to be appropriate specifically for a man or a woman only. Gender roles further break down to several elements including division of labor and hierarchy of authority. It is under the hierarchy of authority that patriarchy comes in. Social constructionism is, on the other hand, the belief that social institutions and all sorts of knowledge in society are ideas created by certain individuals for personal gain. It holds that the rules in the society are just social constructs without any cogent truth behind them, created by people who are thirsty for control. Therefore, constructionism considers gender roles as mere creations of the human mind, done by the few elites who have chosen to modify a system to suit their needs. This view has been particularly a major tool for feminist movements since the 1970s.
Diversity Paradigm: Contingency leadership
Contingency leadership, as a component of the paradigm of diversity, holds that there is no single approach to leading a group of people. The theory argues that every leadership approach is based on merits and circumstances. Basing on the circumstances surrounding a situation or an environment, a person can perform outstandingly in a leadership position. If these circumstances are withdrawn, the individual ends up performing dismally and fail as a leader. In reality, the traits of a leader are directly related to the responses he or she receives from a situation within context. Thus, it is generally believed within contingency theories that leaders are more likely to excel when they feel that the society they are leading will respond appropriately to their leadership ( Justis, 1975) .
There are three social scholars who have theorized contingency leadership. One is Fred Fielder, who theorized that the performance of any led-group is dependent on the psychological make-up of the leader and the control he or she has over a situation ( Janssens & Zanoni, 2014) . Two is Paul Hersey, who asserted that there is no universal measure for the quality of a leader because leadership is dependent on the situation on the ground. Each leader is faced by different tasks which other leaders, though successful in their respective roles, might not be well suited to handle if given the opportunity ( Janssens & Zanoni, 2014) . The third is a group of theorists, namely Victor Vroom, Philip Yetton, and Arthur Jago. These three socialists postulated that the integrity of the hierarchy defines leadership ( Janssens & Zanoni, 2014) . This is to say that the quality of information available to the leader along with the general acceptance by the audience constitutes effective decision making. It is worth noting that the quality of decision making defines the quality of leadership.
As it emerges, contingency paradigm is a collective description of several sub-theories including strategic contingency, Fielder’s contingency, Hersey and Blanchard’s contingency and the Vroom &Yetton’s decision participation contingency. All these theories emphasize the principalities of behaviorism, tasks, system integrity, and system environment as the determinants of leadership. The bottom line in this theory is that the type of tasks facing a group, the traits of the leader, and the nature of those being led all work together for the success of any leadership. Therefore, the main components of contingency leadership are the subordinates, tasks, traits, and group variables ( Abidin, 2011) .
Evidence-Based Research
The theory of contingency leadership has also attracted a number of empirical; researchers, an example being a 2001 study conducted by De Backer, Farkas and Wettlaufer. The study weighed the responses from 160 CEO’s across different continents who had demonstrated a significant success in leadership. The questions focused on whether contingency experiences would create a good leader. Surprisingly, an overwhelming 69% agreed to the questions ( Abidin, 2011) . The same percentage also acknowledged that contingency alone was not enough to create a good leader. While the CEOs hinted that contingency alone was not the sole approach to leadership, it was among the best approaches to leadership developments. When asked to explain their responses, the respondents asserted that when intending to achieve their objectives, organizations and systems need to adapt their leadership approaches to fit with the situation at hand ( Abidin, 2011) . In particular, the contingency approach revealed that five leadership approaches were significant in realizing this success. These included: i) Change agent, where systems must continually create room for continual renovation. ii) Expertise, where the organization must skillfully execute its tasks as it works towards its goals. iii) Human assets, where systems must add value by giving roles to skilled personnel to facilitate developmental programs. iv) Box, that is, the system must add value to itself within its borders, and iv) strategic approach, where the organization must be smart enough to design, create, and evaluate an action plan to guide it through to its success ( Abidin, 2011) . These antecedents were found to be the key to managing the main components of contingency leadership.
These findings seem to urge societies to depart from shallow theories of leadership and social constructions such as patriarchy. It brings a belief that nearly anyone can play a part in a simulated society, a society where an individual is not confined with a series of binding norms which limits his or her problem-solving confrontation skills. In overall, the article creates a picture that situations are contextual and dynamic, and everyone should be given the opportunity to make a change.
Miller’s (2017) article gave a completely different approach to the whole concept of patriarchy. It is normal to expect that books and stories about patriarchy focus on the male dominance that was widespread in past societies. However, Miller (2017) urges society to consign patriarchy to the past. The author persuades the readers to abandon the patriarchal view of the past society with the hope that it will not influence their perceptions of the women in the current society. A major drawback of focusing too much on the real meaning of patriarchy is that it would inspire the re-adoption of the former mindsets, especially in the already changing leadership environments. The author further contends that patriarchy should not be used as a basis of feministic views because it might draw considerable opposition from the non-feminists. Such oppositions would come at a disadvantage to the female gender at a time when considerable steps have been made to break free from the chains of patriarchy.
According to the author, these arguments are not a clever way of sitting on the fence for fear of taking sides. Instead, she views them as encouragement of positivity in the society, especially among the disadvantaged. This is to say that some of the traditional frameworks are insightful toolkits for change but others imply serious social harm to the underprivileged members of the society. In this case, women are theoretically affected by the negative sentiments stemming from the reviews on patriarchy. As such, the author advocates for selective usage of traditional paradigms. Those who adopt them in arguments should be considerate about the overall impact they have on the social fabric of the society today.
Other critiques
Patriarchy Denial
There is a segment of the male population who refuse to accept the existence of patriarchy. Because of the extreme criticism taking shape against patriarchy, the advocates for men's right have come up boldly to shift the blame to feminism. So far, the basic argument tabled by the men is that women constitute about half the population of the world, thus have enjoyed considerable success in their feminist push for equality ( O'Brien, 2014) . For the leadership posts still held by men, the patriarchy sceptics say that women have willfully elected men into elective posts that they should have reserved for women had there been the need to break free from man's oppression. This, according to the men, is a sure indication that the concept of patriarchy is actually a scapegoat taken up by women when they fail to measure up to the standards set up by their male counterparts.
An equally intriguing concern touches slightly outside the political leadership. Here, the sceptics raise issues regarding other female-dominated professions such as nursing, and question why society does not regard the female dominance in such professions as patriarchy ( O'Brien, 2014) . Instead of relying on the traditional notion that patriarchy exists, the women, led by feminist leaders, ought to strive and become resilient as their male counterparts. The most recent claims even point that women are already ahead, or should have at least been. This is because women have enjoyed a longer life expectancy as compared to their male counterparts since the onset of the 20 th century, making them naturally privileged ( O'Brien, 2014) . However, these views from sceptics have been criticized for relying on light differences between men and women to dismiss a very deeply rooted situation. It ignores other more weighty issues pertaining to male dominance.
Relating Leadership, Contingency, and Diversity
Several schools of thought explain and define how contingency relates with the individual wearing the mantle of power as well as the alternative theory of diversity. The best explanation so far comes from Justis (1975). It is a concept of interdependency, which states that nothing that exists, either physical or non-physical, exists on its own. Everything appears the way it is because of the passive factor acting in the background. Take, for instance, a black painting on a white sheet of paper. It would not appear as dark if the same painting is made on a blue background. Most people looking at the painting may fail to recognize the effect of the white background on the clarity of the painting by focusing on the beauty of the artwork, but the reality is that the background color also plays a role.
People often view leadership, in the same way as a painting. It is as if a leader, in spite of all the circumstances around him, will always act in a specific manner. However, the reality of the matter is that a leader, in order to continue being effective, will have to adjust to whatever happens around him, and this is called contingency. Contingency literally translates to ‘depending upon.’ All the theorists who propose contingency leadership, therefore, acknowledge that no situation is permanent and everything is dependent. Since diversity also stands on the principles of interdependence, then it is appropriate to conclude that contingency leadership is an element of diversity, which in turn is a component an alternative paradigm ( Justis, 1975) .
Case Scenarios
Tevin, a 34-year-old man, applied for a management position in a pizza hut restaurant. The owner of the Pizza hut restaurant has run out of options but is not certain of whether or not Tevin, who happens to be his last available option from among the shortlisted applicants, will be well suited for the leadership role. Faced with such a situation, the manager should focus on Tevin’s competency on contingency leadership before awarding him the leadership position. Tevin is new to the job so his team wills most likely not trust him. Secondly, the staff turnover is expected to be so high that Tevin will not easily build instant strong relationships. Again, the task structure will be high because the organization already has a predefined procedure of operations to follow. These range from making pizza to welcoming customers. Additionally, the authority will be high. Tevin will be capable of hiring or firing, rewarding or punishing as is required.
To see if Tevin really fits in the above scenario, the restaurant owner can use Fiedler’s contingency Theory model. The model comprises of a Least-Preferred Co-worker (LPC) scale to evaluate the leaders’ preferences. Factors that enhance relationships are ranked 4-7 in the LPC scale, while those that indicate task-orientation are labelled 1, 2, 3, and 8 ( Abidin, 2011) . From the LPC scale, if Tevin scores values of between 4 and 7, he is relationship-oriented and is best suited for the job. This is because the restaurant manager should foster a good relationship with the employees to cultivate trust, responsibility, and customer relationship. This calls for a relationship-oriented leader.
The existence of patriarchy in the real world is a completely different case. Women report that they are twice as much scrutinized, their movements are monitored, they encounter harassments, and above all, feel most insecure in public spaces than their male counterparts. Women face scrutiny for wearing too little or for wearing too much. Most women complain over the types of commentaries that they receive for dressing up as per their desires. Rarely does someone say that “the lady is wearing an outfit,” and leave it at that. Women walking alone at night feel more insecure than when they are with men. They also risk being drugged at pubs, adding to their long chain of vulnerabilities to men. They also fear to air their opinions freely, especially if a man is going to be on the receiving end.
Conclusion
Contingency theory emerges to be very applicable in the leadership selection process. This theory emphasizes that the effectiveness of leadership depends on matching a leader's ability in the right situation. It can be assessed by the Least Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) scale to identify who can suitably with the leader in the same environment. From the scale, leaders are either classified as task-oriented or relationship-oriented, and this forms the basis of the leader selection process. Basing on this theory, the jobs which have a lot of insecurities and mistrust often demand the relationship-oriented leaders because they have the ability to build and sustain formidable workplace relationships. Conversely, highly structured tasks that are independent of relationships are better managed by task-oriented leaders. Also notable, when situations are really ugly, and the organization is in a crisis (such that there are poor leader-member relationships and low-task structure) a strong task-oriented leader will be needed.
Significantly, this theory is valid because it has been proved by a large number of empirical studies. The model is also predictive because there is a well-defined means of evaluating the suitability of a leader, that is, the LPC scale. However, on it is weaker side, the theory does not elaborate on the reasons why leaders are ineffective in certain situations. Lastly, the theory does not build leaders adeptly. This is because unless the leader is willing to adapt and change his style, he or she might not succeed when promoted to higher ranks. Unlike the contingency leadership theory, patriarchy is less likely to gain significant attention in the modern world because of the notions that it is a systematic purge carried on women. In the same context, there is little evidence of ethical concerns in applying contingency leadership to real-world scenarios. Conversely, the very existence of patriarchy is considered to be ethically wrong on the grounds of gender-based discrimination.
References
Abidin, N. (2011). Contingency Leadership Approach for More Effective Leadership - PDF . [online] Docplayer.net. Available at: https://docplayer.net/62097247-Contingency-leadership-approach-for-more-effective-leadership.html [Accessed 4 Oct. 2019].
Janssens, M. and Zanoni, P., 2014. Alternative diversity management: Organizational practices fostering ethnic equality at work. Scandinavian Journal of Management , 30 (3), pp.317-331.
Justis, R.T., 1975. Leadership effectiveness: A contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal , 18 (1), pp.160-167.
Miller, P., 2017. Patriarchy . Routledge.
O'Brien, J. (2014). The World’s Fastest Patriarchy Disproof . [online] A Voice for Men. Available at: https://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/the-worlds-fastest-patriarchy-disproof-2/ [Accessed 4 Oct. 2019].
Soman, U., 2009. Patriarchy: Theoretical postulates and empirical findings. Sociological Bulletin , 58 (2), pp.253-272.
