Fiedler's Contingency Model Research Articles

The Fiedler Contingency Model and the Functioning of Military Squads

Joint effects of leader esteem for least preferred coworker (leader LPC), mean LPC of members, and intergroup competition on adjustment, interpersonal relations, and task performance effectiveness ...

The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: some implications of its statistical and methodological properties.

The statistical and methodological adequacy of several aspects of Fiedler's (1967) contingency model of leadership effectiveness were considered. Data from several published studies were reanalyzed in order to accomplish this end. It was suggested that the use of rank order correlations instead of product moment correlations produces distortions related to sample size. LPC (least preferred coworker) was shown to be a reasonable predictor of group performance, but the model implies that LPC is unrelated to group performance under some conditions of situational favorableness. Problems with a multidimensional interpretation of LPC and a unidimensional interpretation of situational favorablness were discussed. Problems of research strategies used to test and validate the model were considered in terms of sample size, inclusion of nonsignificant results, the difficulty involved in adequately testing higher order interactions, and the inability to make between octant comparisons. It was concluded that the model is capable of directing meaningful research, but only as long as traditional research procedures designed to safeguard internal and external validity are carefully exercised.

An Experimental Test of the Contingency Model on Small Classroom Groups

Summary The problem was to test the applicability of Fiedler's contingency model on 56 junior high school classroom groups. It investigated the effectiveness of high and low least preferred co-worker (LPC) leaders with good and poor leader member relations (LMR) and weak power on structured and unstructured group tasks. The results indicated that high LPC leaders were more effective for a structured task when LMR were poor, and no relationship was found when LMR were good. For an unstructured task the results indicated that high LPC leaders were more effective when LMR were good. When LMR were poor, low LPC leaders were more effective than high on only one of the four measures used. These findings offer partial support for the model.

Further discussion of Fiedler's contingency model of leadership effectiveness

Fiedler's claim that his model is empirically valid was refuted on methodological and empirical grounds. The analysis of cumulative results, using Fisher's method of combining correlations, indicated that the model failed the validity test in six of the eight situational octants. Further analysis indicated, contrary to Fiedler's claim, that the model and its related research have serious theoretical and methodological flaws.

LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS IN AN EDUCATIONAL SETTING

Fiedler's theory of leadership effectiveness was tested in the setting of a school practice period in a specialist college of physical education. Leader‐member relations, task structure, and position power, the three elements in Fiedler's model, were respectively operationalized as student teacher‐pupil relationships, games skills or movement and dance, and overall favourableness of the school situation. Although the correct prediction of appropriate student teacher leadership style was significantly beyond chance, the discussion of results questions whether the data provide support for Fiedler's contingency model.

Predicting the emergence of leaders using Fiedler's contingency model of leadership effectiveness.

2 Fiedler's (1967) contingency model of lead- ership effectiveness has been one of the most influential theories in the field of leadership research. The model proposes that leadership effectiveness, as reflected by group produc- tivity, is contingent upon the interaction of the leader's orientation and the favor- ableness of the group task situation. Lead- ership orientation is measured by Fiedler's esteem for the least preferred co-worker (LPC) scale. Fiedler (1967) originally proposed that low LPC leaders are task oriented and primarily motivated toward task achievement while high LPC leaders are relationship oriented and primarily motivated toward establishing rewarding interpersonal relationships. Fiedler (1970) recently modi- fied this interpretation to include secondary motivational systems. Situational favorable- ness reflects the degree to which the leader has influence and control over the group's activities. Favorableness is determined by the nature of the leader-member relations, the degree of structure inherent in the task, and the leader's position power. The contingency model describes the relationship between lead- ership orientation (or style) and leadership effectiveness in terms of correlations between

Leadership style and group decision effectiveness: Correlational and behavioral tests of Fiedler's contingency model

Experimental tests of Fiedler's “contingency model” of leadership effectiveness generally leave unanswered questions of precise criterion validity, due to limits on statistical significance of correlations based on small Ns. Seventy-five role-play groups were used in tests of one of the nine possible situations to which the model predicts. In this case, leaders with low LPC (Least-Preferred Co-Worker) scores (“task-oriented”) should be superior to high LPC (“relationship-oriented”) leaders. Two experiments ( N = 53 N = 22) yielded r = −.29 and −.19, respectively, between leaders' LPC and a group decision effectiveness score. Overall, r ave = −.26 ( P < .05). The obtained confidence level closely approximates that which could be reasonably expected for the N used if the predicted correlation (−.33) were, in fact, the true population value. This, and the consistency of results between the two independent experiments, justifies the conclusion that a small but significant relationship exists between leadership style and group effectiveness for the situation investigated. The practical utility of this relationship was discussed. Some behavioral differences between high and low LPC leaders were also examined and discussed.

The effects of changing leader power: A test of “situational engineering”

Using 3-man laboratory groups performing an unstructured task, leader position power was experimentally manipulated as a test of Fiedler's (1965) suggestion that characteristics of a leadership situation could be “engineered” to provide a productive match with leadership style. Increased leader power resulted in increased leader structuring behavior, but decreased leader power was ineffective in decreasing structuring behavior. Group productivity predictions derived from Fiedler's (1967) contingency model were supported in low ability groups but contradicted in high ability groups. It was concluded that while situational engineering still may be a viable idea, the ability of the model to provide specific “engineering” guidance is questionable.

Toward a behavioral theory of leadership

A great deal of the apparent inconsistency in the leadership literature may be due to semantic confusion about leader behavior and to the absence of a conceptual framework which includes intermediate and situational variables. A system of three distinct leader behavior dimensions is proposed to reduce this confusion. Two of the dimensions are similar to the familiar variables, Consideration and Initiating Structure. The third dimension, Decision-Centralization, refers to the extent to which a leader allows his subordinates to participate in decision-making. A discrepancy model is developed to explain the relation between leader behavior and subordinate satisfaction with the leader. A multiple linkage model is developed to explain how the leader behavior variables interact with situational variables to determine group productivity. A review of the leadership literature revealed that the results of previous research are generally consistent with the proposed models. The compatibility of the linkage model with Fiedler's Contingency Model is discussed, and suggestions for future research are offered.

Leadership Style and Effectiveness Of Department Chairmen In Business Administration.

Much of the current thought and research on leadership effectiveness focuses on adaptive leadership rather than on one best leadership style. Fiedler's Contingency Model attempts to demonstate how ...

The Contingency Model: Criticism and Suggestions.

The authors present a critical analysis of Fiedler's Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness. These criticisms are discussed and various solutions are suggested.

Leadership Style and Effectiveness Of Department Chairmen In Business Administration

Much of the current thought and research on leadership effectiveness focuses on adaptive leadership rather than on one best leadership style. Fiedler's Contingency Model attempts to demonstate how ...

A Consideration of Two Assumptions Underlying Fiedler's Contingency Model for Prediction of Leadership Effectiveness

Abstract : An attempt was made to explore two of the basic assumptions underlying Fiedler's (1964, 1965) Contingency Model: (1) the assumption that different group-task situations 'require a different leader-group member interaction,' i.e., 'demand' different types of leadership behaviors; and (2) the assumption that these 'demands' will covary systematically with the three dimensions of the group-task situation specified by the Contingency Model. One hundred forty-one male undergraduates rated the way they believed the 'Most Effective Leader' (MEL) should perform in each of eight group-task situations on a Behavioral Description Questionnaire. The results indicated that although these ratings of the MEL's behavior did vary across the different group-task situations, the ratings were significantly influenced by only two of the three group-task dimensions isolated by Fiedler, namely, the leader-member relations and the position power dimensions. Additional hypotheses related to the Contingency Model were also investigated and discussed.

Group structure and the measurement of potential leader influence

Abstract A major proposition of Fiedler's contingency model of leadership is that the effectiveness of a particular style of leadership is dependent upon the favourability of the group situation. Favourability refers to the potential influence of the leader and is measured by ordering several dimensions of group structure. This paper presents a more general method of measuring potential influence which involves the use of matrix representations of group structure. The use of this index of potential influence is illustrated in a study dealing with the effect of group structure upon productivity.

A situational approach to leadership effectiveness.

Fiedler's contingency model suggests that task-oriented leaders are more effective where the leadership situation is either very favorable or very unfavorable and that relations-oriented leaders are more effective in situations of intermediate favorability. This model was tested among supervisors in both interacting and coacting groups in two organizations Results in the hypothesized direction were attained although they were not generally significant. One of the most perplexing problems confronting managers has been to determine the leadership style most conducive to promoting effective work groups. Empirical studies directed toward finding that style which is most effective have yielded inconclusive and often contradictory results (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Fiedler, 1958; Lewin, Lippitt & White, 1939; Likert, 1961; Shaw, 1955). Although some theoreticians have been perplexed by the difficulty in identifying the one best leadership style, many practical supervisors have viewed the leadership literature with amusement as they have long recognized that both the directive, authoritarian, task-oriented leader and his counterpart, the democratic, human relations leader have proved effective in countless situations. The Contingency Theory of Leadership Effectiveness recently advanced by Fiedler (1964) suggests a theoretical explanation for both the confusion which now exists in the literature and the practical insights of many managers. This theory suggests that leadership is an influence process where the ease or difficulty of exerting influence is a function of the favorableness of the group task situation for the leader. Although it has been recognized that the favorableness of each group task situation may depend on different variables, the three most commonly acknowledged determinants stated in their order of importance are leader-member relations, task structure, and position power. Once these variables have been measured, they can be ordered into

Fiedler's leadership contingency model: An empirical test in three organizations

This study tested Fiedler's leadership theory, the “Contingency Model” in three business and industrial organizations. The samples included research chemists, shop craftsmen, supermarket meat and grocery departments, and production foremen. The model successfully predicted performance for both interacting (high member—task interdependence) and co-acting (low member—task interdependence) groups in the sampled organizations. However, almost as much variance appeared to be explained by leader—member relations alone as by the interaction (implied by the model) of this variable with task structure. These results indicate the model's apparent applicability to industrial organizations, but suggest that more research is needed to determine how complex the model might need to be in such organizations.

Effects of leadership style upon group performance as a function of task structure.

Abstract : Fiedler's contingency model for the prediction of leadership effectiveness holds that directive leadership is more effective when the group-task situation is either highly favorable or highly unfavorable for the leader, whereas nondirective leadership is more effective in the intermediate ranges of favorability. An experiment was conducted to test this hypothesis. Five-person groups attempted three tasks under either directive or nondirective leadership. Leadership behavior was manipulated by instructions. The three tasks were selected to vary along the Solution multiplicity dimension, hence presumed to reflect different levels of favorability for the leader. The results indicated that the directive leader was more effective than the nondirective leader only when the group-task situation was highly favorable for the leader, thus only partially supporting the hypothesis. The discrepancy between theoretical expectations and obtained results was discussed in terms of the experimental manipulations of the favorability continuum and the incompleteness of the contingency model. It was suggested that a consideration of task requirements in relation to leader behavior would add to the comprehensiveness of the model. (Author)