166:
their least preferred coworkers in a more positive manner, e.g., more pleasant and more efficient. Therefore, they receive higher LPC scores. People who are task-motivated, on the other hand, tend to rate their least preferred coworkers in a more negative manner. Therefore, they receive lower LPC scores. So, the least preferred coworker scale is actually not about the least preferred worker at all; instead, it is about the person who takes the test and that person's motivation type. This is because individuals who rate their least preferred coworker in relatively favorable light on these scales derive satisfaction out of interpersonal relationship, and those who rate the coworker in a relatively unfavorable light get satisfaction out of successful task performance. This method reveals an individual's emotional reaction to people they cannot work with. Critics point out that this is not always an accurate measurement of leadership effectiveness. Fiedler expanded his studies outside of the lab and showed the interrelations between adjustment, group performance, and leadership style in a volunteer medical team under different conditions of stress while working in isolated villages of
Central America. The task-oriented leader performed better in situations that were favorable and relatively unfavorable while the relationship-oriented leader only fared better in situations of intermediate favorableness. As the LPC is a personality measure, the score is believed to be quite stable over time and not easily changed. Low LPCs tend to remain low and high LPCs tend to remain high, which shows that the test-reliability of the LPC is strong.
339:
situations with intermediate favorability. Leaders in high positions of power have the ability to distribute resources among their members, meaning they can reward and punish their followers. Leaders in low positions of power cannot control resources to the same extent as leaders in high power and so lack the same degree of situational control. For example, the CEO of a business has high position power, because she is able to increase and reduce the salary that her employees receive. On the other hand, an office worker in this same business has low position power, because although they may be the leader on a new business deal, they cannot control the situation by rewarding or disciplining their colleagues with salary changes.
175:
unable to assume control over the group situation cannot be sure that the members they are leading will execute their commands. Because situational control is critical to leadership efficacy, Fiedler broke this factor down into three major components: leaderâmember relations, task structure, and position power. Moreover, there is no ideal leader. Both low-LPC (task-oriented) and high-LPC (relationship-oriented) leaders can be effective if their leadership orientation fits the situation. The contingency theory allows for predicting the characteristics of the appropriate situations for effectiveness. Three situational components determine the favourableness of situational control:
331:
unfavorable, where they have low power, control, and influence. Relationship-motivated leaders tend to perform best in situations in which they have moderate power, control, and influence. Both the relationship and the task-motivated leaders perform well under some situations but not under others. It is not accurate to speak of a "good" or a "poor" leader; rather, a leader may perform well in one type of situation but not in another. Outstanding directors of research teams do not necessarily make good production foremen or military leaders, and outstanding battle field commanders, like United States Army
General
18:
420:(CRT) modifies Fiedler's basic contingency model by adding traits of the leader. CRT tries to identify the conditions under which leaders and group members will use their intellectual resources, skills, and knowledge effectively. While it has been generally assumed that more intelligent and more experienced leaders will perform better than those with less intelligence and experience, this assumption is not supported by Fiedler's research.
352:, Fiedler (with Martin Chemers and Linda Mahar) offers a self paced leadership training program designed to help leaders alter the favorableness of the situation, or situational control. The advantage of contingency theory is that it âdoes not require that people be effective in all situationsâ. According to Northouse, although one person may be successful in one role, they may not be successful in another based on the environment.
86:
intellectual abilities on the job. Thus, intelligence is more effective and used more often in stress-free situations. Fiedler concludes that experience impairs performance in low-stress conditions but contributes to performance under high-stress conditions. As with other situational factors, for stressful situations
Fiedler recommends altering or engineering the leadership situation to capitalize on the leader's strengths.
356:
may be the wrong person in six months or in one or two years." For example, if a company has a workshop for all managers that effectively changed the task structure from low to high, it might seem good for the company at first glance, but it is important to note that leaders who were effective in a low task structure situation could become very ineffective in a situation with a high task structure.
381:(relationship-oriented) style of leadership can be appropriate in an environment where the situation is moderately favorable or certain, for example, when (1) leaderâmember relations are good, (2) the task is structured, and (3) position power is either strong or weak. Situations like this exist with
322:
Task
Structure, referring to the extent to which group tasks are clear and structured. When task structure is low (unstructured), group tasks are ambiguous, with no clear solution or correct approach to complete the goal. In contrast, when task structure is high (structured), the group goal is clear,
338:
When there is a good leaderâmember relation, a highly structured task, and high leader position power, the situation is considered a "favorable situation." Fiedler found that low-LPC leaders are more effective in extremely favorable or unfavorable situations, whereas high-LPC leaders perform best in
89:
Fiedler's situational contingency theory holds that group effectiveness depends on an appropriate match between a leader's style (essentially a trait measure) and the demands of the situation. In other words, effective leadership is contingent on matching leader's style to the right setting. Fiedler
404:
Fiedler's contingency theory has drawn criticism because it implies that the only alternative for an unalterable mismatch of leader orientation and an unfavorable situation is changing the leader. The model's validity has also been disputed, despite many supportive tests. The contingency model does
355:
One implication of "job engineering" or "job restructuring" through additional training is that if all leaders are given the same training regardless of their position in the contingency model, it could create a mismatch between the leader and situation. "The right person for a particular job today
102:
The leadership style of the leader is thus fixed and measured by what
Fiedler calls the least preferred coworker (LPC) scale, an instrument for measuring an individual's leadership orientation. The LPC scale asks a leader to think of all the people with whom they have ever worked and then describe
85:
To
Fiedler, stress is a key determinant of leader effectiveness, and a distinction is made between stress related to the leader's superior and stress related to subordinates or the situation itself. In stressful situations, leaders dwell on the stressful relations with others and cannot focus their
373:
Blue-collar workers generally want to know exactly what they are supposed to do. Therefore, their work environment is usually highly structured. The leader's position power is strong if management backs their decision. Finally, even though the leader may not be relationship-oriented, leaderâmember
369:
Task-oriented leadership would be advisable in a natural disaster, like a flood or fire. In an uncertain situation the leaderâmember relations are usually poor, the task is unstructured, and the position power is weak. The one who emerges as a leader to direct the group's activity usually does not
174:
According to
Fiedler, the ability to control the group situation (the second component of the contingency model) is crucial for a leader. This is because only leaders with situational control can be confident that their orders and suggestions will be carried out by their followers. Leaders who are
93:
Fiedler's contingency model is a dynamic model where the personal characteristics and motivation of the leader are said to interact with the current situation that the group faces. Thus, the contingency model marks a shift away from the tendency to attribute leadership effectiveness to personality
57:
is the result of their experiences throughout the lifespan and is therefore extremely difficult to change. Fiedler argued that one should concentrate on helping people understand their particular leadership style and how to match that style to the particular situation rather than teaching people a
165:
A high LPC score suggests that the leader has a "human relations orientation", while a low LPC score indicates a "task orientation". Fiedler assumes that everybody's least preferred coworker in fact is on average about equally unpleasant, but people who are relationship-motivated tend to describe
330:
The basic findings of the
Contingency Model are that task-motivated leaders perform generally best in very "favorable" situations, that is, either under conditions in which their power, control, and influence are very high (or, conversely, where uncertainty is very low) or where the situation is
365:
A company that might be hiring a new manager to take on a leadership position that has poor current leaderâmember relations and high task structure and authority, the company would be best positioned to fill this role with a high LPC or leaderâmember relations to improve poor relations. Hiring
347:
Since personality is relatively stable though it can be changed, the contingency model suggests that improving effectiveness requires changing the situation to fit the leader. This is called "job engineering" or "job restructuring". The organization or the leader may increase or decrease task
318:
LeaderâMember
Relations, referring to the degree of mutual trust, respect, and confidence between the leader and the subordinates. When leaderâmember relations in the group are poor, the leader has to shift focus away from the group task in order to regulate behavior and conflict within the
370:
know subordinates personally. The task-oriented leader who gets things accomplished proves to be the most successful. If the leader is considerate (relationship-oriented), they may waste so much time in the disaster that things get out of control and lives are lost.
408:
Other criticisms concern the methodology of measuring leadership style through the LPC inventory and the nature of the supporting evidence. Fiedler and his associates have provided decades of research to support and refine the contingency theory.
405:
not take into account the percentage of "intermediate favorability" situations vs. "extremely favorable or unfavorable situations"; hence, it does not give a complete picture of the comparison between low-LPC leaders and high-LPC leaders.
388:, who do not like superiors to structure the task for them. They prefer to follow their own creative leads in order to solve problems. In a situation like this a considerate style of leadership is preferred over the task-oriented.
374:
relations may be extremely strong if they can gain promotions and salary increases for subordinates. Under these situations the task-oriented style of leadership is preferred over the (considerate) relationship-oriented style.
391:
The last example of a task-oriented leader is one that is in charge of large products. They have to oversee all of the operations and make decisions on behalf of the entire project. They have many tasks and goals to be set.
73:
Fiedler's model does have some weaknesses. For example, some leaders may be more effective in certain situations than others. The LPC scale can be questioned because the assessment is performed by one individual on another.
727:
81:
of the leader and the degree to which the situation gives the leader power, control, and influence over the situation or, conversely, the degree to which the situation confronts the leader with uncertainty.
1023:
Hooijberg, R. and Choi, J. (1999) "From
Austria to the United States and from Evaluating Therapists to Developing Cognitive Resources Theory: An Interview with Fred Fiedler", Leadership Quarterly 10(4):
569:
Fiedler, Fred E.; O'Brien, Gordon E.; Ilgen, Daniel R. (1969). "The Effect of Leadership Style Upon the Performance and Adjustment of Volunteer Teams Operating in Stressful Foreign Environment".
90:
considers situational control the extent to which a leader can determine what their group is going to do to be the primary contingency factor in determining the effectiveness of leader behavior.
401:
Researchers often find that Fiedler's contingency theory falls short on flexibility. They also note that LPC scores can fail to reflect the personality traits they are supposed to reflect.
62:
scale in order to help one understand one's specific leadership style. According to Fiedler, because leadership behavior is fixed, effectiveness can only be improved by
378:
890:
Vecchio, R. P. (1983). "Assessing the validity of Fiedler's contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A closer look at Strube and Garcia".
805:
766:
603:
Fiedler, (1993). "The contingency model: New directions for leadership utilization". In Michael T. Matteson and John M. Ivancevich Eds.
348:
structure and position power; also, training and group development may improve leaderâmember relations. In his 1976 book
850:
715:
925:
789:
750:
634:
612:
441:
103:
the person with whom they have worked least well, using a series of bipolar scales of 1 to 8, such as the following:
1045:
845:
Schriesheim, C. A. and Kerr, S. (1977) "Theories and Measures of Leadership", in J.G. Hunt, and L.L. Larson (eds),
863:
Vecchio, R. P. (1977). "An empirical examination of the validity of Fiedler's model of leadership effectiveness".
465:
Nebeker, D. (1975). "Situational Favorability and Perceived Environmental Uncertainty: An Integrative Approach".
985:(ed.), Management Laureates: A Collection of Autobiographical Essays, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, vol. 1, 301â34.
77:
The theory holds that the effectiveness of a task group or of an organization depends on two main factors: the
950:
335:, do not necessarily make good chiefs of staff or good chairmen of volunteer school picnic committees.
323:
unambiguous and straightforward: members have a clear idea about the how to approach and reach the goal.
53:
The most common situational theory was developed by Fred Fiedler. Fiedler believed that an individual's
658:
366:
someone who is more relation-oriented will help rebuild those the poor current leaderâmember relations.
417:
685:
Fiedler, Fred E. (Autumn 1974). "The Contingency ModelâNew Directions for Leadership Utilization".
432: â Quality of one individual or group influencing or guiding others based on authority
819:
Ashour, A. S. (1973). "The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: An evaluation".
66:
tasks or changing the amount of power the leader had over organizational factors (such as
8:
1050:
509:
438: â Patterns of personal characteristics that foster consistent leader effectiveness
799:
760:
652:
586:
482:
326:
Leader Position Power, referring to the power inherent in the leader's position itself.
38:
982:
921:
876:
832:
785:
746:
711:
640:
630:
629:. Michael T. Matteson, John M. Ivancevich (5th ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin. 1993.
608:
590:
537:
Northouse, (2007). Leadership: Theory and Practice, Contingency Theory, pp. 113-126.
525:, Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
899:
872:
828:
578:
474:
435:
332:
54:
506:
New Approaches to Leadership, Cognitive Resources and Organizational Performance
903:
582:
1039:
63:
17:
644:
1011:
Stress, Babble, and the Utilization of the Leaderâs Intellectual Abilitiesâ
34:
624:
78:
486:
429:
42:
385:
478:
382:
559:. 5th ed. pp. 245â277. Belmont: CA, Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
67:
673:
Improving Leadership Effectiveness: The Leader Match Concept
444: â "1978 theory: Factors reducing need for leadership."
350:
Improving Leadership Effectiveness: The Leader Match Concept
1009:
Fiedler, F. E., Gibson, F. W. and Barrett, K. M. (1993) â
710:, New York: The Free Press, pp. 494â510, 651â2, 840â41.
555:
Forsyth, D. R. (2006). "Leadership". In Forsyth, D. R.,
568:
1016:
Fiedler, F. E., Godfrey, E. P. and Hall, D. M. (1959)
1002:
Fiedler, F. E., Garcia, J. E. and Lewis, C. T. (1986)
918:
The encyclopedia of the history of American management
342:
671:
Fiedler, F. E., Chemers, M. M. and Mahar, L. (1976)
446:
Pages displaying wikidata descriptions as a fallback
990:
Directory of the American Psychological Association
500:
498:
496:
59:
58:particular leadership style. Fiedler developed the
1027:King, B., Streufert, S. and Fiedler, F. E. (1978)
97:
1037:
523:Leadership Experience and Leadership Performance
493:
1029:Managerial Control and Organizational Democracy
626:Management and organizational behavior classics
605:Management and Organizational Behavior Classics
889:
862:
865:Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
821:Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
818:
728:"7 Key Strengths of Task-Oriented Leadership"
412:
974:, Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
883:
856:
839:
464:
169:
804:: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
782:Leadership qualities for effective leaders
765:: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
743:Leadership qualities for effective leaders
515:
105:
1031:, Washington, DC: V. H. Winston and Sons.
995:Fiedler, F. E. and Chemers, M. M. (1974)
551:
549:
547:
545:
543:
972:Leader Attitudes and Group Effectiveness
947:Leader Attitudes and Group Effectiveness
504:Fiedler, F. E. and Garcia, J. E. (1987)
70:, disciplinary action, and promotions).
33:by business and management psychologist
999:, Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Co.
702:
700:
684:
1038:
1020:, Danville, IL: Interstate Publishers.
1018:Boards, Management and Company Success
812:
779:
740:
708:Leader March, a Handbook of Leadership
540:
458:
41:concerned with the effectiveness of a
1013:, Leadership Quarterly 4(2): 189â208.
920:. Bristol: Thoemmes Continuum. 2005.
958:A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness
697:
597:
533:
531:
1004:People Management, and Productivity
997:Leadership and Effective Management
967:, New York: General Learning Press.
343:Leaderâsituation match and mismatch
13:
938:
851:Southern Illinois University Press
14:
1062:
979:Life in a Pretzel-shaped Universe
528:
442:Substitutes for Leadership Theory
396:
784:. New Delhi, India. p. 30.
745:. New Delhi, India. p. 30.
687:Journal of Contemporary Business
675:, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
467:Administrative Science Quarterly
16:
992:, Chicago: St James Press, 419.
910:
773:
734:
720:
678:
780:Gujral, Gurdeep Singh (2013).
741:Gujral, Gurdeep Singh (2013).
665:
617:
562:
179:Situational Leadership Styles
98:Least preferred coworker (LPC)
60:least preferred coworker (LPC)
26:Business and management theory
1:
451:
951:University of Illinois Press
877:10.1016/0030-5073(77)90061-7
847:Leadership: The Cutting Edge
833:10.1016/0030-5073(73)90057-3
155:
144:
133:
122:
111:
7:
423:
359:
152:
141:
130:
119:
108:
48:
10:
1067:
1006:, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
904:10.1037/0033-2909.93.2.404
583:10.1177/001872676902200602
158:
147:
136:
125:
114:
418:Cognitive resource theory
413:Cognitive resource theory
960:, New York: McGraw-Hill.
170:Situational favorability
22: Reviewing request.
1046:Organizational behavior
988:Fiedler, F. E. (1997)
977:Fiedler, F. E. (1992)
970:Fiedler, F. E. (1981)
963:Fiedler, F. E. (1971)
956:Fiedler, F. E. (1967)
945:Fiedler, F. E. (1958)
892:Psychological Bulletin
657:: CS1 maint: others (
521:Fiedler, F. E. (1994)
45:in an organization.
706:Bass, B. M. (1990)
510:John Wiley and Sons
180:
849:, Carbondale, IL:
730:. 5 February 2020.
178:
39:contingency theory
315:
314:
163:
162:
31:contingency model
1058:
932:
931:
914:
908:
907:
887:
881:
880:
860:
854:
843:
837:
836:
816:
810:
809:
803:
795:
777:
771:
770:
764:
756:
738:
732:
731:
724:
718:
704:
695:
694:
682:
676:
669:
663:
662:
656:
648:
621:
615:
601:
595:
594:
566:
560:
553:
538:
535:
526:
519:
513:
502:
491:
490:
462:
447:
436:Trait leadership
333:George S. Patton
196:Leader Position
181:
177:
156:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
145:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
134:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
123:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
112:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
106:
55:leadership style
20:
1066:
1065:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1036:
1035:
1034:
941:
939:Further reading
936:
935:
928:
916:
915:
911:
888:
884:
861:
857:
844:
840:
817:
813:
797:
796:
792:
778:
774:
758:
757:
753:
739:
735:
726:
725:
721:
705:
698:
683:
679:
670:
666:
650:
649:
637:
623:
622:
618:
602:
598:
571:Human Relations
567:
563:
554:
541:
536:
529:
520:
516:
503:
494:
479:10.2307/2391700
463:
459:
454:
445:
426:
415:
399:
362:
345:
193:Task Structure
172:
100:
51:
27:
12:
11:
5:
1064:
1054:
1053:
1048:
1033:
1032:
1025:
1021:
1014:
1007:
1000:
993:
986:
975:
968:
961:
954:
949:, Urbana, IL:
942:
940:
937:
934:
933:
926:
909:
898:(2): 404â408.
882:
855:
838:
827:(3): 339â355.
811:
790:
772:
751:
733:
719:
716:978-0029015001
696:
677:
664:
635:
616:
596:
577:(6): 503â514.
561:
557:Group Dynamics
539:
527:
514:
492:
473:(2): 281â294.
456:
455:
453:
450:
449:
448:
439:
433:
425:
422:
414:
411:
398:
397:Opposing views
395:
394:
393:
389:
375:
371:
367:
361:
358:
344:
341:
328:
327:
324:
320:
313:
312:
309:
306:
303:
299:
298:
295:
292:
289:
285:
284:
281:
278:
275:
271:
270:
267:
264:
261:
257:
256:
253:
250:
247:
243:
242:
239:
236:
233:
229:
228:
225:
222:
219:
215:
214:
211:
208:
205:
201:
200:
194:
191:
187:LeaderâMember
185:
171:
168:
161:
160:
157:
154:
150:
149:
146:
143:
139:
138:
135:
132:
128:
127:
124:
121:
120:Uncooperative
117:
116:
113:
110:
99:
96:
50:
47:
25:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1063:
1052:
1049:
1047:
1044:
1043:
1041:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1019:
1015:
1012:
1008:
1005:
1001:
998:
994:
991:
987:
984:
980:
976:
973:
969:
966:
962:
959:
955:
952:
948:
944:
943:
929:
927:9780199754687
923:
919:
913:
905:
901:
897:
893:
886:
878:
874:
870:
866:
859:
852:
848:
842:
834:
830:
826:
822:
815:
807:
801:
793:
791:9789382573258
787:
783:
776:
768:
762:
754:
752:9789382573258
748:
744:
737:
729:
723:
717:
713:
709:
703:
701:
692:
688:
681:
674:
668:
660:
654:
646:
642:
638:
636:0-256-08750-4
632:
628:
627:
620:
614:
613:9780256087505
610:
606:
600:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
565:
558:
552:
550:
548:
546:
544:
534:
532:
524:
518:
511:
507:
501:
499:
497:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
461:
457:
443:
440:
437:
434:
431:
428:
427:
421:
419:
410:
406:
402:
390:
387:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
363:
357:
353:
351:
340:
336:
334:
325:
321:
317:
316:
310:
308:Unstructured
307:
304:
301:
300:
296:
294:Unstructured
293:
290:
287:
286:
282:
279:
276:
273:
272:
268:
265:
262:
259:
258:
254:
252:Unstructured
251:
248:
245:
244:
240:
238:Unstructured
237:
234:
231:
230:
226:
223:
220:
217:
216:
212:
209:
206:
203:
202:
199:
195:
192:
190:
186:
183:
182:
176:
167:
151:
140:
129:
118:
107:
104:
95:
91:
87:
83:
80:
75:
71:
69:
65:
64:restructuring
61:
56:
46:
44:
40:
36:
32:
24:
23:
19:
1028:
1017:
1010:
1003:
996:
989:
983:A.G. Bedeian
978:
971:
964:
957:
946:
917:
912:
895:
891:
885:
868:
864:
858:
846:
841:
824:
820:
814:
781:
775:
742:
736:
722:
707:
690:
686:
680:
672:
667:
625:
619:
604:
599:
574:
570:
564:
556:
522:
517:
508:, New York:
505:
470:
466:
460:
416:
407:
403:
400:
354:
349:
346:
337:
329:
197:
188:
173:
164:
126:Cooperative
101:
92:
88:
84:
76:
72:
52:
35:Fred Fiedler
30:
28:
21:
15:
871:: 180â206.
853:, pp. 9â45.
693:(4): 65â80.
379:considerate
280:Structured
266:Structured
224:Structured
210:Structured
137:Supportive
109:Unfriendly
79:personality
1051:Leadership
1040:Categories
965:Leadership
452:References
430:Leadership
386:scientists
189:Relations
184:Situation
800:cite book
761:cite book
653:cite book
591:145760402
115:Friendly
645:25049837
424:See also
383:research
360:Examples
153:Guarded
131:Hostile
49:Premises
1024:653â66.
487:2391700
297:Strong
269:Strong
241:Strong
213:Strong
94:alone.
924:
788:
749:
714:
643:
633:
611:
589:
485:
319:group.
198:Power
68:salary
43:leader
981:, in
587:S2CID
483:JSTOR
311:Weak
305:Poor
291:Poor
283:Weak
277:Poor
263:Poor
255:Weak
249:Good
235:Good
227:Weak
221:Good
207:Good
159:Open
148:....
142:....
37:is a
922:ISBN
806:link
786:ISBN
767:link
747:ISBN
712:ISBN
659:link
641:OCLC
631:ISBN
609:ISBN
377:The
29:The
900:doi
873:doi
829:doi
579:doi
475:doi
1042::
896:93
894:.
869:19
867:.
823:.
802:}}
798:{{
763:}}
759:{{
699:^
689:.
655:}}
651:{{
639:.
607:.
585:.
575:22
573:.
542:^
530:^
495:^
481:.
471:20
469:.
302:8
288:7
274:6
260:5
246:4
232:3
218:2
204:1
953:.
930:.
906:.
902::
879:.
875::
835:.
831::
825:9
808:)
794:.
769:)
755:.
691:3
661:)
647:.
593:.
581::
512:.
489:.
477::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.