The least-favorable situation occurs under poor leader-member relations, an unstructured task, and weak position power (cell 8).Įxhibit 13.10 Fiedler’s Contingency Model of Leader-Situation Matches Source: Adapted from F. The situation is most favorable for a leader when the relationship between the leader and group members is good, when the task is highly structured, and when the leader’s position power is strong (cell 1 in Exhibit 13.10). In order of importance, they are (1) leader-member relations-the degree of the group’s acceptance of the leader, their ability to work well together, and members’ level of loyalty to the leader (2) task structure-the degree to which the task specifies a detailed, unambiguous goal and how to achieve it and (3) position power-a leader’s direct ability to influence group members. 74 Three factors work together to determine how favorable a situation is to a leader. 73 Several years later, Fiedler changed his situational factor from situational favorability to situational control-where situational control essentially refers to the degree to which a leader can influence the group process. To Fiedler, situational favorableness is the degree to which leaders have control and influence and therefore feel that they can determine the outcomes of a group interaction. Some situations favor leaders more than others do. They are task-oriented people, and only after tasks have been accomplished are low-LPC leaders likely to work on establishing good social and interpersonal relations. In contrast, leaders with low LPC scores tend to evaluate the individuals with whom they least like to work fairly negatively. Task accomplishment is a secondary need to this type of leader and becomes important only after the need for relationships is reasonably well satisfied. They tend to evaluate their least-preferred coworkers in fairly favorable terms. (You can examine your own LPC score by completing the LPC self-assessment on the following page.)įiedler states that leaders with high LPC scores are relationship oriented-they need to develop and maintain close interpersonal relationships. The most popular interpretation of the LPC score is that it reflects a leader’s underlying disposition toward others-for example: pleasant/unpleasant, cold/warm, friendly/unfriendly, and untrustworthy/trustworthy. Leaders are asked about their least-preferred coworker (LPC), the person with whom they least like to work. According to Fiedler, organizations attempting to achieve group effectiveness through leadership must assess the leader according to an underlying trait, assess the situation faced by the leader, and construct a proper match between the two. 72 This theory is known as the contingency theory of leadership. Fiedler from the University of Washington. One of the earliest, best-known, and most controversial situation-contingent leadership theories was set forth by Fred E. Victor Vroom, Phillip Yetton, and Arthur Jago’s decision tree model also applies. 71 We explore two of the better-known situational theories of leadership, Fred Fiedler’s contingency model and Robert J. These are Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership, the path-goal theory of leader effectiveness, Hersey and Blanchard’s life cycle theory, cognitive resource theory, the decision tree, and the decision process theory. Several theories have been advanced to address this issue. Contradictory findings such as this lead researchers to ask “Under what conditions are the results positive in nature?” and “When and why are they negative at other times?” Obviously, situational differences and key contingencies are at work. That is, there are times when initiating structure results in performance increases and follower satisfaction, and there are times when the results are just the opposite.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |