CONTINGENCY

MODEL
Sanskriti
20/1264
WHAT IS CONTINGENCY MODEL?

Fiedler’s contingency model argues that effective leadership depends

• Th e LPC contingency model assumes that a leader’s contribution to the success of the group is determined by
the leader’s competency and by the situation. Both factors are important in understanding the effectiveness of
leaders.

• Fielder identified esteem (liking) for the least preferred co-worker (LPC) as the most important trait in leaders.
Th e LPC is a person with whom the leader has found it most difficult to work. Th e LPC score refers to the
leader’s tendency to evaluate the person favorably or unfavorably

• Leaders who perceive their LPCs in negative terms are called low-LPC leaders. Th ese leaders are primarily
concerned with successfully completing tasks. Leaders who perceive their LPC in positive terms are called
high-LPC leaders. Th ese leaders are mainly concerned with establishing good relationships with subordinates.
Leaders with high-LPC ratings are psychologically close to their group; leaders with low-LPC ratings are
psychologically distant. Leaders who describe LPCs favorably tend to be employee centered in their dealings
with subordinates. Leaders who describe LPCs unfavorably tend to be autocratic, task-centred, and less
concerned with human relations.
Situational variables
Which type of leader, low-LPC or high-LPC, is more effective?
Fielder’s answer is that the effectiveness of leaders depends on several variables and factors. Three
major variables decide which type of leader will be more effective in a specific situation. These
variables, which are also called situational control variables and can impede or facilitate a leader’s
attempt to influence group members, are as follows:

LEADER-
POSITION MEMBER
POWER TASK RELATIONS
STRUCTURE
Leader–member relations: The most important of the three variables is leader–member relations. A
leader who is liked and respected has the subordinates’ confidence, works in a smoothly functioning
group, and can enhance the effectiveness of the group. Good leader– member relations suggest that leaders
can depend on the group, which ensures that the work group tries to achieve the goals and objectives.

Task structure: Clearly defined task goals and roles for both leaders and subordinates need to be in place.
The organization supports leaders by structuring jobs with the help of procedures, rules, and regulations.
Leaders find it easier to influence subordinates to comply with their responsibilities under structured job
situations in which the activities to be performed are specific and clear.

Position power: Th is refers to the leaders’ ability to enforce compliance. The power of the position is the
authority that leaders command due to a proven ability to handle the group. In this position, rewards and
punishment are at the leaders’ disposal. Leaders have the authority to define group rules, which establishes
leaders’ undisputed leadership over the group. Leaders with strong position power have considerable
freedom to reward or punish subordinates
Combining the above three situational variables, leaders’ situational control can range from very high, which would be
characterized by situations where there are positive relations with group members in a highly structured environment
with high position power, to very low, in which the relations with group members are not so positive, the work
environment relatively unstructured, and the leader has a very low position power.

Fiedler arrived at a continuum depicting the favorableness of the situation, that is, the extent to which the situation could
be favorable to the leader. According to Fiedler, low-LPC leaders are more effective than high-LPC leaders when the
situational control is either very low or very high

High-LPC leaders have an edge when situational control falls within a moderate range, The reason for this is that under
conditions of low situational control, groups need considerable guidance and direction to accomplish their tasks. As low-
LPC leaders are more likely to provide a more robust structure to the group than high-LPC leaders, they are usually
more effective. Similarly, low-LPC leaders are more effective in conditions that off er the leader a high degree of
situational control.
Applying Fiedler’s contingency theory
A high-LPC leader should, ideally, be moved to a job in which the situational control is extremely high or extremely low. In
specific situations, it may not be possible to change the leader. In that case, an eff ort should be made to change the situation by
altering relations between leaders and group members or by controlling the power that could be exercised by the leader in a
given situation. Despite the fact that research on the LPC contingency theory has yielded mixed results, practitioners have found
it quite useful when it comes to suggesting ways to enhance leader effectiveness. The theory assumes that certain kinds of
leaders are more effective than others in different situations. Since it is difficult in most cases to alter a person’s leadership style,
the best way to enhance effectiveness is to create a fit between the leader and the situations they face. Determining the match
between the leadership style and the situation involves filling in a questionnaire that can be used to assess both the LPC score of
the leader and the amount of situational control the leader faces in the situation. Then, through the use of the indices, a match can
be made so that leaders are placed into situations that best suit their leadership style. This technique is known as leader match
(Fiedler et al. 1976). This approach focuses on ways to change situational control variables such as leader–member relations,
task structure, and leader position power, especially when it is impractical to change the leaders
 Evaluating Fiedler’s contingency theory
Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership has been the subject of a considerable amount of criticism (Graen et al.
1971), but there is substantial evidence to support at least a major part of the theory (Schriesheim et al. 1994). Fiedler
has consistently defended his approach, theory, research, and interpretation of the research evidence. Th e literature on
the contingency theory of leadership contains numerous viewpoints. Criticisms revolve around the diffi culties of
measuring task structure, the problem in using the LPC score to diff erentiate task-oriented and human-relations-
oriented leadership (Schreisheim et al. 1994), and in particular, the absence in many studies of a leader with an LPC
score somewhere between high and low. Fiedler’s view about the last point is that middle LPC leaders are not
concerned with either tasks or human relations and perform poorly in most leadership situations. However, others
dispute this view. Fiedler’s model focuses heavily on performance and neglects employee satisfaction, which, as a
result, provides an incomplete picture of leadership eff ectiveness (Gray and Starke 1988). To counter the criticisms of
his LPC theory, Fiedler along with an associate went on to refi ne his earlier work and put forward a cognitive-resource
theory that also takes into account the intelligence and experience of the leader (Fielder and Gracia 1987).