Fiedler contingency model

Last updated

The contingency model by business and management psychologist Fred Fiedler is a contingency theory concerned with the effectiveness of a leader in an organization.

Contents

Premises

The most common situational theory was developed by Fred Fiedler. Fiedler believed that an individual's leadership style 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 particular leadership style. Fiedler developed the least preferred coworker (LPC) 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 restructuring tasks or changing the amount of power the leader had over organizational factors (such as salary, disciplinary action, and promotions).

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.

The theory holds that the effectiveness of a task group or of an organization depends on two main factors: the personality 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. [1]

To Fiedler, stress is a key determinant of leader effectiveness, [2] [3] 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 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.

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. [4] Fiedler 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.

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 alone. [5]

Least preferred coworker (LPC)

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 the person with whom they have worked least well, using a series of bipolar scales of 1 to 8, such as the following:

Unfriendly1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Friendly
Uncooperative1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Cooperative
Hostile1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Supportive
....1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8....
Guarded1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Open

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 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. [6] 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. [2]

Situational favorability

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 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: leader–member relations, task structure, and position power. [5] 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:

Situational Leadership Styles
SituationLeader–Member

Relations

Task StructureLeader Position

Power

1GoodStructuredStrong
2GoodStructuredWeak
3GoodUnstructuredStrong
4GoodUnstructuredWeak
5PoorStructuredStrong
6PoorStructuredWeak
7PoorUnstructuredStrong
8PoorUnstructuredWeak
  1. Leader–Member Relations, referring to the degree of mutual trust, respect, and confidence between the leader and the subordinates. When leader–member 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 group. [5]
  2. 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, unambiguous and straightforward: members have a clear idea about the how to approach and reach the goal. [5]
  3. Leader Position Power, referring to the power inherent in the leader's position itself.

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 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. [7] 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 George S. Patton, do not necessarily make good chiefs of staff or good chairmen of volunteer school picnic committees. [8]

When there is a good leader–member 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 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. [5]

Leader–situation match and mismatch

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 structure and position power; also, training and group development may improve leader–member relations. In his 1976 book Improving Leadership Effectiveness: The Leader Match Concept, 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. [9] The advantage of contingency theory is that it “does not require that people be effective in all situations”. [4] According to Northouse, although one person may be successful in one role, they may not be successful in another based on the environment.

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 may be the wrong person in six months or in one or two years." [10] 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.

Examples

Opposing views

Researchers often find that Fiedler's contingency theory falls short on flexibility. [13] They also note that LPC scores can fail to reflect the personality traits they are supposed to reflect. [14]

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. [11] The contingency model does 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.

Other criticisms concern the methodology of measuring leadership style through the LPC inventory and the nature of the supporting evidence. [15] [16] [17] [18] Fiedler and his associates have provided decades of research to support and refine the contingency theory. [19]

Cognitive resource theory

Cognitive resource theory (CRT) modifies Fiedler's basic contingency model by adding traits of the leader. [2] 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.

See also

Related Research Articles

Industrial and organizational psychology "focuses the lens of psychological science on a key aspect of human life, namely, their work lives. In general, the goals of I-O psychology are to better understand and optimize the effectiveness, health, and well-being of both individuals and organizations." It is an applied discipline within psychology and is an international profession. I-O psychology is also known as occupational psychology in the United Kingdom, organisational psychology in Australia and New Zealand, and work and organizational (WO) psychology throughout Europe and Brazil. Industrial, work, and organizational (IWO) psychology is the broader, more global term for the science and profession.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Leadership</span> Quality of one individual or group influencing or guiding others based on authority

Leadership, is defined as the ability of an individual, group, or organization to "lead", influence, or guide other individuals, teams, or organizations.

The path–goal theory, also known as the path–goal theory of leader effectiveness or the path–goal model, is a leadership theory developed by Robert House, an Ohio State University graduate, in 1971 and revised in 1996. The theory states that a leader's behavior is contingent to the satisfaction, motivation and performance of his or her subordinates. The revised version also argues that the leader engages in behaviors that complement subordinate's abilities and compensate for deficiencies. According to Robert House and John Antonakis, the task-oriented elements of the path–goal model can be classified as a form of instrumental leadership.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Organizational theory</span> Sociological study of social organizations

Organizational theory refers to a series of interrelated concepts that involve the sociological study of the structures and operations of formal social organizations. Organizational theory also seeks to explain how interrelated units of organization either connect or do not connect with each other. Organizational theory also concerns understanding how groups of individuals behave, which may differ from the behavior of an individual. The behavior organizational theory often focuses on is goal-directed. Organizational theory covers both intra-organizational and inter-organizational fields of study.

Organizational behavior or organisational behaviour is the "study of human behavior in organizational settings, the interface between human behavior and the organization, and the organization itself". Organizational behavioral research can be categorized in at least three ways:

Power distance is the unequal distribution of power between parties, and the level of acceptance of that inequality; whether it is in the family, workplace, or other organizations.

A contingency theory is an organizational theory that claims that there is no best way to organize a corporation, to lead a company, or to make decisions. Instead, the optimal course of action is contingent (dependent) upon the internal and external situation. Contingent leaders are flexible in choosing and adapting to succinct strategies to suit change in situation at a particular period in time in the running of the organization.

Fred Edward Fiedler was one of the leading researchers of industrial and organizational psychology in the 20th century. He helped shape psychology and was a leading psychologist.

Transformational leadership is a theory of leadership when a leader's behaviors influence their followers and inspire them to perform beyond their perceived capabilities. Transformational leadership inspires people to achieve unexpected or remarkable results. Transformational leaders work with teams or followers beyond their immediate self-interests to identify necessary change. They create a vision to guide the change through influence and inspiration. These changes are executed in tandem with committed group members and involve self-interests. This elevates the follower's ideals, maturity levels, and concerns for achievement. Transformational leadership is an integral part of the Full Range Leadership Model and gives workers autonomy over specific jobs, as well as the authority to make decisions once they have been trained. This induces a positive change in the followers' attitudes and the organization. Transformational leaders typically perform four distinct behaviors, known as The 4 I's. These behaviors are inspirational motivation, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.

Maintenance actions, historically referred to as socio-emotive actions, are those leadership actions taken by one or more members of a group to enhance the social relationships among group members. They tend to increase the overall effectiveness of the group and create a more positive atmosphere of interaction within the group.

Cognitive resource theory (CRT) is a leadership theory of industrial and organisational psychology developed by Fred Fiedler and Joe Garcia in 1987 as a reconceptualisation of the Fiedler contingency model. The theory focuses on the influence of the leader's intelligence and experience on their reaction to stress.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Situational leadership theory</span> Business model


Situational Leadership is the idea that effective leaders adapt their style to each situation. No one style is appropriate for all situations. Leaders may use a different style in each situation, even when working with the same team, followers or employees.

The history of contingency theories of leadership goes back over more than 100 years, with foundational ideas rooted in the mechanical thought of Taylorism. Later, management science began to recognize the influence of sometimes irrational human perceptions on worker performance. This led to taxonomies of leadership behavior and to contingency theories to adapt leadership behavior to the situation.

William James Reddin also known as Bill Reddin was a British-born management behavioralist, theorist, writer, and consultant. His published works examined and explained how managers in profit and non-profit organizations behaved under certain situations and conditions. The focus of his work was to understand to what extent managers were effective in their role and successful in managing situations to have the right impact on the organization's objectives.

Cross-cultural psychology attempts to understand how individuals of different cultures interact with each other. Along these lines, cross-cultural leadership has developed as a way to understand leaders who work in the newly globalized market. Today's international organizations require leaders who can adjust to different environments quickly and work with partners and employees of other cultures. It cannot be assumed that a manager who is successful in one country will be successful in another.

Substitutes for leadership theory is a leadership theory first developed by Steven Kerr and John M. Jermier and published in Organizational Behavior and Human Performance in December 1978.

Trait leadership is defined as integrated patterns of personal characteristics that reflect a range of individual differences and foster consistent leader effectiveness across a variety of group and organizational situations.

Research has examined whether or not there are sex differences in leadership, and these differences can be seen from a relationship based or task based perspective. Leadership is the process through which an individual guides and motivates a group towards the achievement of common goals. In studies that found a gender difference, women adopted participative styles of leadership and were more transformational leaders than men. Other studies find that no significant gender differences in leadership exist.

The task-relationship model is defined by Donelson Forsyth as "a descriptive model of leadership which maintains that most leadership behaviors can be classified as performance maintenance or relationship maintenances". Task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership are two models which are often compared, as they are known to produce varying outcomes under different circumstances. Task-oriented leadership is a behavioral approach in which the leader focuses on the tasks that need to be performed in order to meet certain goals, or to achieve a certain performance standard. Relationship-oriented leadership is a behavioral approach in which the leader focuses on the satisfaction, motivation and the general well-being of the team members.

In psychology, control is a person's ability or perception of their ability to affect themselves, others, their conditions, their environment or some other circumstance. Control over oneself or others can extend to the regulation of emotions, thoughts, actions, impulses, memory, attention or experiences. There are several types of control, including:

References

  1. ↑ Nebeker, D. (1975). "Situational Favorability and Perceived Environmental Uncertainty: An Integrative Approach". Administrative Science Quarterly. 20 (2): 281–294. doi:10.2307/2391700. JSTOR   2391700.
  2. 1 2 3 Fiedler, F. E. and Garcia, J. E. (1987) New Approaches to Leadership, Cognitive Resources and Organizational Performance, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
  3. ↑ Fiedler, F. E. (1994) Leadership Experience and Leadership Performance, Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
  4. 1 2 Northouse, (2007). Leadership: Theory and Practice, Contingency Theory, pp. 113-126.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Forsyth, D. R. (2006). "Leadership". In Forsyth, D. R., Group Dynamics. 5th ed. pp. 245–277. Belmont: CA, Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
  6. ↑ 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". Human Relations. 22 (6): 503–514. doi:10.1177/001872676902200602. S2CID   145760402.
  7. ↑ Fiedler, (1993). "The contingency model: New directions for leadership utilization". In Michael T. Matteson and John M. Ivancevich Eds. Management and Organizational Behavior Classics. ISBN   9780256087505
  8. ↑ Management and organizational behavior classics. Michael T. Matteson, John M. Ivancevich (5th ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin. 1993. ISBN   0-256-08750-4. OCLC   25049837.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  9. ↑ Fiedler, F. E., Chemers, M. M. and Mahar, L. (1976) Improving Leadership Effectiveness: The Leader Match Concept, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
  10. ↑ Fiedler, Fred E. (Autumn 1974). "The Contingency Model—New Directions for Leadership Utilization". Journal of Contemporary Business. 3 (4): 65–80.
  11. 1 2 Bass, B. M. (1990) Leader March, a Handbook of Leadership, New York: The Free Press, pp. 494–510, 651–2, 840–41. ISBN   978-0029015001
  12. ↑ "7 Key Strengths of Task-Oriented Leadership". 5 February 2020.
  13. ↑ Gujral, Gurdeep Singh (2013). Leadership qualities for effective leaders. New Delhi, India. p. 30. ISBN   9789382573258.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  14. ↑ Gujral, Gurdeep Singh (2013). Leadership qualities for effective leaders. New Delhi, India. p. 30. ISBN   9789382573258.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  15. ↑ Ashour, A. S. (1973). "The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: An evaluation". Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 9 (3): 339–355. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(73)90057-3.
  16. ↑ Schriesheim, C. A. and Kerr, S. (1977) "Theories and Measures of Leadership", in J.G. Hunt, and L.L. Larson (eds), Leadership: The Cutting Edge, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 9–45.
  17. ↑ Vecchio, R. P. (1977). "An empirical examination of the validity of Fiedler's model of leadership effectiveness". Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 19: 180–206. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(77)90061-7.
  18. ↑ Vecchio, R. P. (1983). "Assessing the validity of Fiedler's contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A closer look at Strube and Garcia". Psychological Bulletin. 93 (2): 404–408. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.93.2.404.
  19. ↑ The encyclopedia of the history of American management. Bristol: Thoemmes Continuum. 2005. ISBN   9780199754687.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.