Limitations of Fiedler’s Contingency Theory
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.