Advance Course in Social Psychology
Module-11
Lecture-43
Group Leadership
Prof. Pooja Garg
Associate Professor
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
1
Contingency Models of Leadership
The contingency theory of leadership supposes that a leader’s effectiveness is
contingent on whether or not their leadership style suits a particular situation.
According to this theory, an individual can be an effective leader in one
circumstance and an ineffective leader in another one. To maximize an individual’s
likelihood of being a productive leader, this theory posits that one should be able to
examine each situation and decide if a particular leadership style is going to be
effective or not.
Fred Fiedler proposed a widely recognized situation-based or
contingency theory for leadership effectiveness.
2
The contingency model of leadership proposes that effective group performance
depends on the proper match between the leader’s style of interacting with his or
her subordinates and the degree to which the situation gives control and influence
to the leader.
Therefore, the basic assumption of the contingency theory of leadership is that an
individual’s basic leadership style is a key factor in leadership success.
Fiedler developed an instrument, which he called the least-preferred co-worker (LPC)
questionnaire, that purports to measure whether the
person is task-oriented or relationship-oriented.
3
The questionnaire contains sixteen adjectives and asks the respondent to think of all
the co-workers he or she has ever had and describe the one person he or she has
least enjoyed working with by rating that person on a scale of 1 to 8 for each of the
sixteen sets of contrasting adjectives.
Fiedler believed that, on the basis of the responses to the LPC questionnaire, an
individual’s basic leadership style could be determined. As Fiedler assumed that a
respondent’s descriptions say more about the respondent than about the least
preferred co-worker.
If the LPC is described in relatively positive terms
(a high LPC score), then the respondent was primarily
interested in good personal relations with a co-worker.
And the individual would be labelled as relationship-oriented.
4
In contrast, if the LPC is perceived in relatively unfavorable terms (a low LPC), the
respondent is primarily interested in productivity and thus would be labelled task-
oriented.
To notice, Fiedler assumed that an individual’s leadership style is fixed, that is,
either relationship-oriented or task-oriented.
This assumption is important because it means that if a situation requires a task-
oriented leader and the person in that situation is relationship-oriented, either the
situation has to be modified or the leader is replaced if
optimum effectiveness is to be achieved.
5
Once the leadership style is assessed through the LPC questionnaire, it is necessary
to match the leader with the situation. Fiedler has identified three situational
factors or contingency dimensions as follows:
1.Leader-member relations: The degree of confidence, trust, and respect
subordinates have in their leader.
2.Task structure: The degree to which the job assignments of subordinates are
structured or unstructured.
3.Position power: The degree of influence a leader has over
power variables such as hiring, firing, promotions,
policy making, and salary increases.
6
The Least Preferred Co-worker
Questionnaire
7
Fiedler stated that the better the leader-member relations, the more highly
structured the job is, and the stronger the position power, the more control or
influence the leader had.
Thus, the knowledge of an individual’s LPC and assessment of three
contingency variables will match up to achieve maximum leadership effectiveness
8
Thank You
