Fiedler Contingency Model

10 Key excerpts on "Fiedler Contingency Model"

• 

  eBook - PDF

  Human Resource Development

  • Sannigrahi, Asoke Kumar(Authors)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • NEW INDIA PUBLISHING AGENCY (NIPA)

    (Publisher)

  Contingency theory gained prominence in the late 1960s and 1970s by suggesting that no leadership style is the best one at all times and in all situations. One style of leadership that is effective in one situation may not be in another. Leadership is a complex social and interpersonal process. An Concern for Production Concern for People 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9.9 Team Management 1.9 Country Club Management 5.5 Organisation Man Management 1.1 Improverished Management 9.1 Authority Obedience 131 Leadership Development effective leader must be flexible enough to adopt the differences among subordinates and situations. Contingency – situational theories were developed to indicate that the style to be used is contingent upon such factors as the situation, the people, the task, the organization, and other environmental variables. Four of the more well-known contingency theories are ‘Fiedler’s contingency theory’, ‘Path-goal theory’, ‘the Vroom-Yetton-Jago decision-making model of leadership’, and the ‘situational leadership theory’. Fiedler’s contingency theory Fiedler’s contingency theory was introduced in 1967 by Fred Fiedler to specify how situational factors interact with leader behaviors to influence leadership effectiveness. In a highly routine (mechanistic) environment where repetitive tasks are the norm, a relatively directive (authoritative) leadership style may result in the best performance, however, in a dynamic environment a more flexible, participative style may be required. The theory suggests that the ‘favorability’ of the situation determines the effectiveness of task- and person-oriented leader behavior. Fred Fiedler described the favorableness of a situation using three dimensions. 1. The leader – member relationship – cordial or opposing 2. The degree of task structure at hand – structured or unstructured 3.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The Nature of Leadership

  • John Antonakis, David V. Day, John Antonakis, David V. Day(Authors)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications, Inc

    (Publisher)

  Its placement in our scheme of the trait and behavioral contingency approaches to leadership is not as transparent; however, it seems that the focus is on both leader traits (e.g., Offermann, Kennedy, & Wirtz, 1994) and leader behaviors (Lord, Foti, & DeVader, 1984). As we explain later, leadership categorization demonstrates how expectations about leaders vary due to their role or the situation. In the following subsections, we briefly describe each of these models and present a matrix to compare the models and theories based on their approach to assessing the leader, the situation, and leadership outcomes (see Table 6.1). Leader Trait Contingency Models Two contingency models exist that show the situational factors that intervene between the leader’s characteristics and various outcomes: contingency model of leadership effectiveness and cognitive resource theory. In both these models, the characteristics of the leader relate to individual- and group-level outcomes, but the extent of this relationship depends upon the situation. In this section, we will review each model and discuss the contextual factors in detail. Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness. Fiedler (1964) was the first to formulate a trait contingency model of leadership effectiveness, which became known as the contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In this model, Fiedler (1978) predicted leader or group success from the interaction of the leader’s orientation (i.e., task or relationship) with the leader’s situational control. A leader’s orientation is an internal state and is not directly related to observed behaviors (Ayman, 2002). This orientation is fairly stable and is similar to the way in which personality is conceptualized. To measure a leader’s orientation toward the work setting, the model uses the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale (e.g., Ayman & Romano, 1998)

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Leadership

  Research Findings, Practice, and Skills

  • Andrew DuBrin(Author)
  • 2022(Publication Date)
  • Cengage Learning EMEA

    (Publisher)

  Circle the most accurate answer. Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 120 Chapter 5 Contingency and Situational Leadership (1) leader–member relations measure how well the group and the leader get along; (2) task structure mea- sures how clearly the procedures, goals, and evaluation of the job are defined; and (3) position power measures the leader’s authority to hire, fire, discipline, and grant salary increases to group members. Leader–member relations contribute as much to situation favorability as do task structure and position power combined. The leader therefore has the most control in a situation in which relationships with mem- bers are the best. Overall Findings The key points of Fiedler’s contingency theory are sum- marized and simplified in Figure 5-1. The original theory is much more complex. Leadership effectiveness depends on matching leaders to situations in which they can exer- cise more control. A leader should therefore be placed in a situation that is favorable to, or matches, their style. If this cannot be accomplished, the situation might be modified to match the leader’s style by manipulating one or more of the three following situational variables. The theory states that task-motivated leaders per- form the best in situations of both high control and low control. Relationship-motivated leaders perform the best in situations of moderate control.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Dynamic Management and Leadership in Education

  High Reliability Techniques for Schools and Universities

  • Anthony Kelly(Author)
  • 2021(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Fiedler, 1958 ).

  Fiedler’s contingency model

  The Fiedler Contingency Model was created in the mid-1960s. The model holds that there is no single best style of leadership, but that a leader’s effectiveness is dependent or ‘contingent’ on the situation. Leader efficacy is then the product of two factors: the leader’s natural style and situation ‘control’. The former needs to be matched to the latter, but identifying leadership style is the first step in using the model. Fiedler believed leadership style to be fixed and measurable using a bipolar Likert scale called the Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) scale (see Table 7.1 ). The LPC scale asks the subject to remember another person1 with whom they have worked and to rate that person on each of the scale items. If the total score is high, the subject is likely to be a person-centred, relationship-oriented leader because, according to Fiedler’s theory, relationship-oriented leaders usually view their LPCs more positively and as a result score higher. If the total score is low, the subject is likely to be task-centred because task-oriented leaders usually view their LPCs negatively, producing a lower score.

  Table 7.1 Fiedler’s Least-Preferred Co-worker (LPC) scale

  Unfriendly	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	Friendly
  Unpleasant	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	Pleasant
  Rejecting	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	Accepting
  Boring	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	Interesting
  Uncooperative	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	Cooperative
  Untrustworthy	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	Trustworthy
  Unkind	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	Kind
  Tense	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	Relaxed

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Leadership and Organizations (RLE: Organizations)

  • Alan Bryman(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Fiedler and his co-workers have conducted a number of validation tests of the Leader Match programme, most of which are briefly summarized in the first chapter of the new manual. These studies, which have been conducted in a diversity of settings, all suggest that leaders with Leader Match training perform better than those with either no training or who have undergone an alternative programme. However, it is difficult to avoid being uneasy about a training programme whose theoretical and empirical basis many commentators believe to be at the very least contentious. As Hosking and Schriesheim (1978, p. 500) have succinctly put it: ‘If the Contingency Theory is invalid, so is leader match.’ A further difficulty to which both they and Kabanoff (1981) have drawn attention is that the dimensions of situational favourableness may themselves contribute to group performance. For example, in a re-analysis of the Chemers and Skrzypek (1972) West Point study, Shiflett (1973, p. 434) found that leader-member relations had a very strong independent effect on performance. It was by far the most important contributing factor to variation in performance, much more so than any of the leadership style plus situational context combinations which the model suggests should be more important. It may be that the positive findings of validation studies which compare Leader Match trained groups with control groups can in part be explained by such effects.

  The Leader Match idea is likely to remain controversial as long as the Contingency Model from which it is derived suffers from conflicting views about its validity. The main contribution of the Contingency Model has been to provide an approach to the study of leadership in which situational factors are not merely residual phenomena but central ingredients of an account of leadership effectiveness. While the Fiedler approach has attracted a good deal of controversy, the essence of the model has been enormously influential. The suggestion that a leader's effectiveness is contingent upon the situation has found much more favour than the specific model with which Fiedler has been associated. The contingency approaches to the study of leadership which will be discussed below can be seen as alternative formulations to Fiedler's Contingency Model.

  House's path-goal theory of leadership

  While Fiedler's approach to the study of leadership has often been denigrated for lacking a theoretical framework (e.g. Ashour, 1973), the same cannot be said of House's influential path-goal approach which in large part is an application of the ideas of the ‘expectancy theory’ of work motivation to the domain of leadership. While a number of varieties of this theory exist, the fundamental tenets have been retained in most of the formulations. In essence, expectancy theorists propose that people choose levels of effort at which they are prepared to work. The choice of a high level of effort is contingent upon their assessment of whether it leads to good performance and the value (called ‘valence’ in the language of expectancy theory) of good performance to them. While the theory has been subjected to considerable criticism and the research which emanates from it is fraught with methodological difficulties (Mitchell, 1979), it has been adapted by Robert J. House to the context of the leader's ability to motivate his subordinates.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Industrial and Organizational Psychology

  Research and Practice

  • Paul E. Spector(Author)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Wiley

    (Publisher)

  The reasons why participatory styles sometimes succeed and sometimes fail are complex and may relate to the situations under which they are tried. This brings us to the basic idea of contingency theory: The situation interacts with leader characteristics and leader behavior. Fiedler’s Contingency Theory The trait approach assumes that certain characteristics of people will make them good leaders. The behavior approach presumes that certain leader behaviors will be effective, regardless of the situation. Fiedler’s contingency theory states that Approaches to the Understanding of Leadership 315 leadership is a function of both the person and the situation. One characteristic of the leader and three characteristics of the situation determine leadership effectiveness. The theory begins with the characteristic of the leader, which Fiedler (1978) refers to as the motivational structure of the leader. The motivational structure is assessed with a self‐report instrument called the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale. Although the name implies that it assesses the coworker, the scale actually measures a characteristic of the leader, not the subordinate. The LPC asks the leader to think about the person with whom he or she has had the most trouble working—that is, the coworker with whom he or she would least like to work. The leader then describes his or her least preferred coworker using a semantic differen- tial scale (Osgood, Teannenbaum, & Suci, 1957). The LPC consists of 18 bipolar adjective items, and for each item the leader indicates which of the two words with opposite meanings best describes someone, such as pleasant versus unpleasant or friendly versus unfriendly. (Examples from the LPC scale appear in Table 13-3.) Fiedler’s (1978) theory is also concerned with the situational variable of leader situational control. Situational control concerns the amount of power and influence the leader has over subordinates.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  MGMT

  • Chuck Williams(Author)
  • 2021(Publication Date)
  • Cengage Learning EMEA

    (Publisher)

  Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 323 CHAPTER 14: Leadership Finally, though not shown in Exhibit 14.3, people with moderate LPC scores, who can be somewhat rela- tionship-oriented or somewhat task-oriented, tend to do fairly well in all situations because they can adapt their behavior. Typically, though, they don’t perform quite as well as relationship-oriented or task-oriented leaders whose leadership styles are well matched to the situation. Recall, however, that Fiedler assumes leaders to be inca- pable of changing their leadership styles. Accordingly, the key to applying Fiedler’s contingency theory in the workplace is to accurately measure and match leaders to situations or to teach leaders how to change situational favorableness by changing leader-member relations, task structure, or position power. When powerful Hollywood producer Jeffrey Katzenberg realized that people were wary of approaching him (due to poor leader–member relations), he tried to change situational favorableness by making a practice of sharing meals with sub- ordinates multiple times a day. “Suddenly, the relaxed nature of sitting at a table with somebody coming and bringing food and eating just gave me an ability to connect with people way, way, way better than I could across a desk in an office or sit- ting on the other side of a couch.” 48 Although matching or placing leaders in appropriate situations works particularly well, practicing managers have had little luck reengineering situations to fit their leader- ship styles. The primary problem, as you’ve no doubt real- ized, is the complexity of the theory.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Industrial and Organizational Psychology

  Research and Practice

  • Paul E. Spector(Author)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • Wiley

    (Publisher)

  Although the theory states that the situation determines the best leader character- istics, Fiedler (1978) does not believe that a supervisor should attempt to adapt his or her style to the particular situation. He believes that supervisors should modify the sit- uation to be appropriate to their own leadership style. To this end, he has developed a training program called Leader Match. Fiedler summarized the results of several field experiments comparing Leader Match–trained supervisors with untrained controls. The results showed better group performance for the trained supervisors. Some question has been raised, however, about whether Leader Match training results in leaders changing the situation according to theory or whether the results of the Leader Match research are due to other factors (Jago & Ragan, 1986). Despite the criticisms of the theory, Fiedler has been one of the most influential people in the study of leadership. His major contribution has been to show us that leadership involves the complex interaction of leader characteristics with the leadership situation. His work has been extended by theorists who have developed more complex contingency theories. One of these is path-goal theory, which we discuss next. Path-Goal Theory Path-goal theory (House & Mitchell, 1974) is a contingency theory that is more com- plex than Fiedler’s. It posits that subordinate job performance and job satisfaction result from the interplay of situational characteristics, subordinate characteristics, and super- visor style. The basic idea, which is based on expectancy theory (see Chapter 8), is that the supervisor can enhance the motivation and job satisfaction of subordinates by providing rewards for good job performance and by making it easier for subordinates to achieve their task goals. Supervisors can accomplish this by adopting one of four supervisory styles, the efficacy of which is determined by situational and subordinate characteristics.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  No longer available |Learn more

  Leadership

  Research Findings, Practice, and Skills

  • Andrew DuBrin(Author)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Cengage Learning EMEA

    (Publisher)

  The normative model provides a valuable service to practicing managers and leaders. It prompts them to ask questions about contingency variables in decision-making situations. At a minimum, the model prompts the leader to reflect on whether to make a group or unilateral decision in relation to an issue of consequence. Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 128 CHAPTER 5 • CONTINGENCY AND SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP Leader–Member Exchange and Contingency Theory Another perspective on the contingency approach is suggested by the LMX theory. Leaders who adapt their style to different individuals within the group, or have different quality relationships with individual group members, are essentially practicing contingency leadership. Hundreds of studies have been conducted about LMX theory. One of the many questionnaires used to measure the quality of the relationship between the leader and the group member is presented in Leadership Self-Assessment Quiz 5-2. Here we present several conclusions from LMX research that indicate a contingency approach to leadership. LMX theory has been extensively researched, and only parts of the theory are about contingency leadership. LEADERSHIP SELF-ASSESSMENT QUIZ 5-2 Quality of Leader–Member Relations Instructions: Indicate whether you agree or disagree with each of the following statements in reference to a specific present or former supervisor. STATEMENT ABOUT RELATIONSHIP AGREE DISAGREE 1. My manager likes me a lot. 2. When my boss does criticize me, it is almost always in a helpful, construc-tive way.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Strategic Leadership Development

  Building World Class Performance

  • Colin Carnall, Chris Roebuck(Authors)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Red Globe Press

    (Publisher)

  The Hersey and Blanchard model can therefore provide a basis for leadership development work in organisations using role-play exercises with video and feed-back. Working in groups of three, ‘learners’ can each act out the leader, follower and observer roles in respect of a series of situations and a range of leader-style options. It also allows a focus on the immediate context of leader behaviour. Thus a young army officer accompanied on a field exercise by an experienced non-commissioned officer may feel the need to pay attention to the advice the non-commissioned officer offers because it is based on hard-won experience. Thus we can practise the effects achieved by leadership-style choices. We can look at supportive versus directive leadership behaviour in varying leader contexts (e.g. with well-developed as compared with less well-developed followers) and in different situations. The situational leadership model turns out to be robust and soundly based in contingency thinking and is readily capable of being given opera-tional form in a training setting. The one clear limitation is that to compare leader styles properly the role player needs to both understand and play out the differ-ences accurately. However, the model is a workable basis for feedback and the focus is at least on observable behaviour. Of course, it is less effective where the leadership issues are more complex because multiple variables are likely to be involved. However, in the authors’ experience, at all levels of leadership training and development, the model offers the basis for constructive discussion of alterna-tive leadership styles. 50 Strategic leadership development 3.9 Transformational leadership Transformational, as opposed to transactional, leadership (see explanation below) has attracted considerable attention (Bass, 1985). This approach positions the lead-ership of change as a central feature of the leadership role (see Kotter, 1990; Kouzes and Posner, 1987; Bass and Avolio, 2004).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book