Fiedler’s Contingency Model.

 

An effective leader must know how to use available resources and build a relationship with followers to achieve goals. The Fiedler Model goes under early theories of the Contingency Era.

 

Fred Fiedler was the first researcher to propose a contingency view of leadership. His Contingency Model is the oldest and most highly  researched contingency approach to leadership. Fiedler’s basic premise is that leadership effectiveness is a function of the match between the leader’s style and the leadership situation. If the leader’s style matches the situation, the leader will be effective; otherwise the leader will not be effective. Fiedler considers how the leader uses available resources to make the group effective.

 

Leader style

To determine a leader’s style, Fiedler uses the least-preferred coworker (LPC) scale, a measure that determines what motivation the leader has: task motivation or relationship motivation. Fiedler’s research shows that people’s perceptions and descriptions of their least-preferred coworker provide insight into their basic goals and priorities toward either accomplishing a task or maintaining relationships.

 

According to Fiedler, people with low LPC scores - those who give a low rating to their least-preferred coworker (describing the person as incompetent, cold, untrustworthy and quarrelsome) - are task motivated. They draw their self-esteem mostly from accomplishing their task well. When the task-motivated leaders or their groups fail, they tend to be harsh in judging their subordinates and are often highly punitive. When the task is going well, however, the task motivated leader is comfortable with details and with monitoring routine events.

 

People who have high LPC scores rate their least-preferred coworker relatively positively (describing that person as loyal, sincere, ward and accepting); they are relationship motivated and draw their self-esteem from having good relationships with others. For them, the least-preferred coworker is often someone who has been disloyal and unsupportive rather than incompetent. Relationship-motivated persons are easily bored with details and focus on social interactions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Individuals who fall in the middle of the scale have been labeled socio-independent. They tend to be less concerned with other people’s opinions and may not actively seek leadership roles- Depending on how close their score is to the high or the low end of the scale, they might belong to either the task-motivated or relationship-motivated groups. Some research suggest that middle LPCs may be more effective than either high or low LPCs across all situations.

 

Situational Control

Because effectiveness depends on a match between the person and the situation, Fiedler uses three factors to describe a leadership situation. In order of importance they are:

 

1. The relationship between the leader and the followers

2. The amount of structure of the task

3. The position power of the leader

 

The three elements combine to define the amount of control the leader has over the situation:

 

According to Fiedler, the most important element of any leadership situations is the quality of the relationship and the cohesion between the leader and the followers and among the followers. Good leader-member relations (LMR) meant that the group is cohesive and supportive, providing leaders with a high degree of control to implement what they want. WHen the groups s divide or has little respect or support for the leader, the leader’s control is low.

 

Task structure (TS) is the second element of a leadership situation. It refers to the degree of clarity of a task. A highly structured task has clear goals and procedures, few paths to the correct solution, and one or few correct solutions and can be evaluated easily. The degree of TS affects the leader’s control. Whereas the leader has considerable control when doing a structured task, an unstructured task provides little sense of control. One factor that moderates task structure is the leader’s experience level. On the one hand, if leaders have experience with a task, they will perceive the task as more structured. On the other hand, not having experience will make any task appear to be unstructured.

 

The third and least influential element of the leadership situation is the leader’s position power (PP), which refers to the leader’s formal power and influence over subordinates to hire, fire, reward or punish.

 

The combination of LMR, TS and PP yields the amount of situational control (Sit Con) the leader has over the situation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predictions of the Contingency Model

At the core of the Contingency Model is the concept of match. If the leader’s style matches the situation, the group will be effective. Because Fiedler suggests that the leader’s style is constant, a leader’s effectiveness changes as the situation changes. The Contingency Model predicts that low-LPC, task-motivated leaders will be effective in high- and low-situational control. Whereas high-LPC, relationship-motivated leaders will be effective in moderate-situational control.

 

In high-control situations (left side of the graph) task-motivated, low LPC leaders feel at ease. The leader’s basic source of self-esteem - getting the task done - is not threatened, so the leader can relax, take care of details and help the follower perform.

 

The same high-control situation leads to a different effect on relationship-motivated, high LPC leaders. They are likely to be bored and feel either that there is nothing to do or that nobody needs them. Because the groups is cohesive and the task is clear, the leader is needed mainly to get the group the resources it needs, take care of detail and remove obstacles - all activities that are not appealing to high LPCs, who might, therefore, start being overly controlling and interfere with the group’s performance to demonstrate that they are needed.

 

Moderate-situational control (in the middle of the graph) stems from lack of cohesiveness or lack or task structure. In either case, the situation is ambiguous or uncertain and task completion is in jeopardy. The relationship-motivated, high LPC leaders’ skills at interpersonal relationships and participation are well suited for the situation. This type of leader seeks out followers’ participation and focuses on resolving task and relationship conflicts. The high LPC leader uses the group as a resource to accomplish the task. The same elements that make moderate control attractive to relationship-motivated leaders make the situation threatening to the task-oriented, low LPC leader. The lack of group support, the ambiguity of the task or both, make the low LPCs feel that the task might not be completed. The task-oriented leader becomes autocratic, ignores the task and relationship conflicts and tries to simply complete the task to get a sense of accomplishment.

 

The inappropriate use or resources is likely to worsen the group’s lack of cohesion and prevent the exploration of creative solution to an unstructured task. As a result, the task-motivated leaders group performs poorly in moderate situations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation and Application

Although a large number of studies have supported the Contingency Model over the past 40 years, several researchers have voiced strong criticism regarding the meaning and validity of the LPC scale.

Forty years of research have addressed the majority, although not all, of the concerns. As a result, the Contingency Model continues to emerge as one of the most reliable and predictive models of leadership.

 

The model has several practical implications for managers:

• Leaders must understand their style and the situation to predict how effective they will be
   

• Leaders should focus on changing the situation to match their style instead of trying to change how they act
   

• A good relationship with followers is important to a leader’s ability to lead, and it can compensate for lack of power
   

• Leaders can compensate for ambiguity of a task by getting training and experience