Fiedler’s Contingency Theory of Leadership

Fiedler’s Contingency Theory of Leadership was proposed by Fred Fiedler in the 1960s. The theory employs the Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) scale to categorize leaders either as task-motivated or people-motivated. The theory then appraises the favorableness of the situation and applies the leader-member relations, task structure, and position power to choose the right leadership style. One of the most acute criticisms of Fiedler’s Contingency Theory of Leadership is the fact that it has the subject that there is no ideal way of managing a group. On the contrary, leadership style effectiveness depends on the compatibility between the leader and the environmental circumstances.

Key Takeaways:

• Measured with the LPC scale; the leaders were categorized as task-oriented or relationship-oriented.
• These are leader-member relations which state that the leader’s relationship with subordinates influences their behavior, task structure which defines the way that tasks are specifically designed and coordinated, and position power which highlights the formal authority bestowed on the leader.
• It has been argued that for leadership to be effective, the focus should be placed on matching the leadership style to the right situational context.
• The theory also implies that a leader’s style is somewhat, rigid or not very likely to change in the course of the real leadership work.
• Another weakness of the LPC scale is that it is more or less a subjective type of assessment that makes it difficult, at times, to define the leadership style to be adopted.

Fiedler’s Contingency Theory rests on the foundation that leadership productivity is a cumulative function of the predisposition that a leader brings with him and the nature of the situation at his or her disposal. The theory introduces several key components:

1. Leadership Style: According to Fiedler, there are two main types of leadership; that is, substantive and affiliative.

• Task-oriented Leaders: Dual attention is best focused on the objectives which are to be achieved. These are preoccupation with the manner, method, and product in a given enterprise.
• Relationship-oriented Leaders: They give attention to the interconnections between the teammates as well as the dynamics of the entire team. They focus on needs that have to do with organizational collaboration and cooperation.

2. Least Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) Scale: The LPC Scale is one of the indices used for scoring a leader’s preferred approach. Managers or leaders are requested to recall the person they most disliked working with the previous year and to rate them on a set of bipolar rating adjectives, for example friendly-unfriendly, cooperative-uncooperative. Business managers who give a more positive evaluation of their least-liked subordinates are labeled as being relationship-oriented. If some of the participants described their least preferred co-worker in negative terms, then they were considered task-oriented.

3. Situational Favorableness (Situational Control): Fiedler identifies three dimensions of situational favorableness that determine the effectiveness of leadership styles:

• Leader-Member Relations: It includes the level of beliefs that members have with their leader in terms of his/her ability to lead as well as warrants their confidence, trust, and respect.
• Task Structure: It represents the degree to which the tasks are prescribed and outlined.
• Position Power: It involves formal power to influence the subordinates’ tenure based on appreciation or removal from the organizational setting.

4. Matching Leadership Style to the Situation: According to the theory, task-oriented leaders are most effective when the level of control is high or low, that is the situation is either very favorable or very unfavorable. The control being in the intermediate level, the relationship-oriented leaders perform better than others in moderately favorable conditions.

The basis of the theory states that leadership styles depend on the situations that are found in the organization. Here are the primary features of the theory:

• Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) Scale: The LPC scale is a measuring device applied to diagnose a leader’s style. The leaders of the four organizations were asked to complete a least favorite co-worker scale in which they provided a rating for a series of bipolar adjectives (e.g., friendly-unfriendly, cooperative-uncooperative). LPC is scored high when people relate more to the interpersonal aspect, and when scored low, people focus mainly on the task aspect.
• Situational Variables: The theory focuses on three situational characteristics: Leader-Member Relations, Task Structure, and Position Power that jointly define the relative permissiveness/ harshness of the leader’s working conditions.
• Match Between Style and Situation: According to Fiedler, task-oriented leaders may work best where the environmental rating is either very positive or very negative. Hence, moderately positive conditions provide the highest level of advantage to relationship-oriented leaders.
• Situational Control: The element of situational control is very important in this theory. It relates to the idea of how much the leader can influence the group’s results. This happens when; The organizational relationship is harmonious for the leader and the other members are closely supervised, The formal tasks assigned are clear and familiar to the leader and The leader has a high degree of formal authority over the other members.
• Leadership Effectiveness: Fiedler was of the view that situational contingencies should match the leader’s favored style of approach rather than a leader trying to alter his or her approach to fit the situation.

To apply Fiedler’s Contingency Theory, an organization or leader can follow these steps:

• Assess the Leader’s Style: Go through the LPC scale to figure out if the leader is task-motivated or people-motivated.
• Evaluate Situational Favorableness: To determine this situation’s favorableness, take into account the leader-member relations, the task structure, and the position power.
• Match Leader Style with Situation: There is a need to match the leader’s behavior to the right situational condition. For example, place the task-oriented in either of the highly favorable conditions, and the relationship-oriented in the mid-favorable contexts.
• Modify the Situation if Necessary: If there is a mismatch, changes can be made to the situational variables to enhance the leader’s style. It could be changing task relationships, enhancing leader-member relationships, or modifying the power of the leader.

While Fiedler’s Contingency Theory has significantly contributed to the understanding of leadership dynamics, it is not without its criticisms and limitations:

• Rigidity of Leadership Styles: The theory presupposes that the leader’s style is unalterable, and therefore the person remains the same over time. This perspective leaves no room for the leaders to grow and change their behavior based on the changing circumstances.
• Measurement of LPC: The LPC scale has been issue-critiqued for subjectivity and ambiguity due to the questions posed. Thus, a confusing approach to LPC scores is used to quantify the leadership styles of administration, which can cause vagueness in measuring a leader’s qualities.
• Complexity of Situational Variables: To make it even more comprehensible the theory categorizes these situational variables into three broad classifications. There can be a lot of subtle factors that make up the picture which is impossible to categorize and often times hardly measurable.
• Static Approach to Leadership: From this analysis, one can conclude that Fiedler’s approach has deficiencies in how it treats the character of leadership. Another major concern is that the theory fails to consider the role of the leader in the organization, and how that role and the situations surrounding it can change with time.
• Limited Empirical Support: In this case, some scholars have established that the theory has received some criticism and that it is not very concrete in its validity. Some of the aspects of the theory are well supported while others have not shown strong empirical validity.
• Cultural Considerations: The theory was developed and tested in a Western environment and its applicability in other cultures where leadership behavior as well as dynamics of organizations might differ is questionable.

Contingency Theory of Leadership represented by Fiedler could be a useful tool to explain how the leadership style depends on the environment. Thus, the theory is useful in the ways that stress the ability to fit the leadership style with situational favorableness as key to enhanced effectiveness of leadership. Nevertheless, these shortcomings explain why leadership requires a more elaborate model that is not rigid. New studies should account for the interactions of Leadership with its versatile and fluid characteristic contents, as well as the cultural environments in which it unfolds. Thus, Fiedler’s Contingency Theory has its merits in the course of leadership studies and it stresses that there is no simple recipe for successful leadership. It is not a simple process and this makes it situational and essentially involves the understanding of the leader and his/her environment.

What is the core concept of Fiedler’s Contingency Theory of Leadership?

This model reveals an alteration between two key areas of leadership competence; the leader’s behaviors and the nature of the opportunity. It means that there is no one right approach to leadership and that there are factors which predetermine its efficiency.

How is a leader’s style determined in Fiedler’s Contingency Theory?

A construct known as the Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) scale is employed to assess a leader’s task-oriented or relationship-oriented approach in an assignment.

What are the three situational variables in Fiedler’s Contingency Theory?

The three situational variables include, leader-member relations, task structure and position power. All the aforementioned factors in conjunction define the extent of the hospitality of the situation for a leader.

What are the main criticisms of Fiedler’s Contingency Theory?

The main criticisms include the rigidity of the LPC leadership style, self iciness of the LPC scale, oversimplification of the situational variables and lastly, the limited use of the theory in dynamic and diverse ethnic environment.