Focus on Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership model from Avery (2011). Make sure you are familiar with the four leadership styles covered in the situational approach (Directing, Coaching, Supporting, and Delegating) and situations where you are supposed to use these four styles.

Case Assignment

A. You are in charge of a fast-food restaurant. The employees are all teenagers who have not yet graduated from high school, and this is the first job for most of them.

write a 3 full-page paper (excluding title and reference pages) to include 3 scholarly sources from the uploaded references:

1. What is the Situational Leadership Model, and how can it be used to improve your selected scenario?

2. The Situational Leadership Model involves both “inputs” and “outputs” by taking employee commitment and competency as inputs and then, based on the employee information, selects one of the four Directing, Coaching, Supporting, or Delegating as an output.
Create a table comparing and contrasting the four leadership styles (Directing, Coaching, Supporting, or Delegating) in terms of inputs and outputs, and include a 1 or 2 paragraph discussion of your table.

3. Based on your table and the readings, which of the four leadership styles do you think is most useful to the scenario and why?

References:

Bauer, T., & Erdogan, B. (2012). 

Chapter 12.4: What is the role of the context? Contingency approaches to leadership

. In Organizational behavior. Saylor Academy.

Evans, M. G. (2002). Chapter 4: Path-Goal theory of leadership. In L. L. Neider, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership.

Ayman, R. (2002). Chapter 7: Contingency model of leadership effectiveness: Challenges and achievements. In L. L. Neider, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership.

R.J. HOUSE’S “A PATH-GOAL THEORY OF
LEADER EFFECTIVENESS”

Martin C. Evans*
University of Toronto

1964 was a wonderful year for organizational behavior. Three influential micro

organization theory books (Argyris, 1964; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoeck, & Rosenthal,

1964; Vroom, 1964) were published, as well as one that recast our view of organization

structuring (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1964). Vroom’s articulation of expectancy theory as a

general model of job choice and motivation inspired a large number of researchers to test

the theory (e.g., Hackman & Porter, 1968), to criticize the theory (Mitchell, 1974), and to

elaborate on the theory.
It is in the elaboration mode that House’s path-goal theory makes its contribution. The

path-goal theory of leadership had its genesis, as did one other influential theory of

leadership (Katz, Maccoby, & Morse, 1950) in the work of the Institute for Social Research

at the University of Michigan. In 1957, Georgopoulos, Mahoney, and Jones published their

seminal test of the expectancy theory of motivation. By 1964, with the publication of

Vroom’s Work and Motivation, the theory had been broadened to encompass a whole

series of individual choices (of a job, of an organization, and of how hard to work) in

organizational settings. During this period, (Kahn, 1958) argued that the effects of leaders

on subordinates’ performance and satisfaction might be mediated through effects upon the

subordinate’s motivation.
Once Vroom had articulated a viable, testable theory of motivation, it was clear that the

next sensible step was to examine whether important organizational factors (leadership,

structure, job design) might have an impact on employee behavior through a motivational

mediator.
Evans (1968, 1970) presented a theoretical exposition of the ways in which this

mediation might take place for leadership behavior (consideration and initiating structure)

* Direct all correspondence to: Professor M.G. Evans, University of Toronto, Faculty of Management, 246 Bloor
Street West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada MSS lV4. r-mud: evans@fmgmt.mgmt.utoronto.ca

Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 305-309.

Copyright 0 1996 by JAI Press Inc.

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

ISSN: 1048.9843

306 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 7 No. 3 199

6

and provided for a test of the theory (as well as of the underlying expectancy theory of

motivation).
In 1971, House extended the theory by examining the contingencies under which

leader behavior might affect each of the elements of motivation; and this position was

elaborated and extended by House and Mitchell (1974) and Evans (1979) {See also

Indvick, 1986).

Table 1
Predictions From Path-Goal Theory

LAW&~ Behcr~ior Viirirrhk
~

Reward variety

Diagnose differences in desired rewards

Upward influence

‘VI{ E/

Charismatic behavior

Articulates goal

Competent

Supportive

Trustworthy

Accurate feedback

Timely. clear. specific feedback

Discrm~inate between good and poor performance

Courage to communicate feedback

Accurate attributions about the causes of subordinate’s

bchuvior

Participation in goal settmg and measures

C[)nlmunic~te contingencies

Reward and punish co~ltin~et~t on pcrf[~r~~luncc

Recommend contingent organizationa rewards

Stimulate contingent reward by group and by outsiders,

supportive climate

Visible performance

Group rewards

Articulate the value of the organization

Set difficult goals

Directive

Participative

Show confidence

Coaching and training

Clarify paths

Participative
Directive

Planning and or~uni~in~

Supportive

+

4% .I E,

+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+
A

+
+
+
+
+

EV,

+

I

+
+
+
.I.

Selection and Placement

House’s Path-Goal Theory 307

Donald Hebb once wrote that a good theory was one that stays around long enough to
help one get to a better theory. The path-goal theory of leadership has fulfilled that
criterion well. From the initial development by Evans in 1968, the theory has developed
into a contingency form (House, 1971) and into a general diagnostic model (Kerr &
Jermier, 1978). Once path-goal theory had focused upon transactional calculative forms
of leadership (the impact on subordinates’ expectancies and, to a lesser extent, the
provision of valued rewards), the gap in terms of the leader’s role in need arousal became
clear. This, together with Bums (1978) work on transformational leadership led to the
development of better theories: the charismatic and transformational theories of
leadership (House, 1977; Bass, 1985); these take path-goal theory to its logical
transcendental limit.

The development of the path-goal theory of leadership was a triumph of the theory
building process. An examination of the components of the underlying motivation model
led House to question what aspects of leader behavior might affect these components; this
led him to his breaking with the traditional dimensions of initiation of structure and

consideration to the richer set of: directive, supportive, achievement-oriented, and
participative (House & Mitchell, 1974). A more recent elaboration Evans (1987) of
relevant leader behaviors is provided in Table 1.

The second contribution of this theory building process was the second question that
House asked: What alternative ways could be provided for the individual to be high in the
components of motivation? Unlike Fiedler’s (1967) contingency theory which was driven
by empiricism, House was led to the contingency aspects of his theory by both
inconsistent empirical findings and theoretical insight. Aspects of the job, organization,
and individual could affect the individual’s motivation and preferences for leader
behaviors.

TESTING OF THE THEORY

Although the theory presented specifically articulated the role of motivation as the
mediator between leader behavior and subordinate satisfaction and performance, most tests

of path-goal theory have focused on the direct effects, under different contingencies, of
leader behavior on satisfaction and performance. These tests have been very restrictive in
the kinds of leader behaviors examined, the dependent variables studied, and the moderator
variables examined. Summary data from the bulk of the published research testing path-
goal theory are presented in Table 2 (Evans, 1987).

These data indicate how restricted our efforts have been. Nearly all the studies have
focused on two leader behaviors (instrumental [29] and supportive [25]) as they interacted
with task structure [20] to affect performance [ 151 or, more likely, satisfaction [26].

The number of studies that have examined components of the motivation theories is
small [4]. The number of studies that have included individual characteristics of the
subordinate as moderators is minimal [4]; and only two have looked at joint task and
individual characteristics as moderators (Schuler, 1976; Weed, Mitchell, & Smyser, 1976).
In the light of the absence of studies testing the critical motivational hypotheses of the
theory, it is hard to argue that the theory has undergone reasonable testing. It has not. As
we honour this classic citation, it may be time to re-examine the level of support for the
theory.

308 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 7 No. 3 1996

Table

2

Variables Used in Tests of Path-Goal Theory
._______~.

Leader Rehn~iors

Instrumental/direclive

Supporrivelconsiderate

Participative
Upward influence

Contingent reward

Contingent punishment

Other

Task structure, repetitiveness, scope

Role Ambiguity

Task Independence

Autonomy

Group or Organization size or cohesion

Subordinate expertise or education

Upward influence

Leader expertise

Other

Dupendunr Vcrriahl~s

Performance

Turnover

Supervisor satisfaction

Work satisfaction

Extrinsic satisfaction

intrinsic satisfaction

Overall satisfaction

Effort

El

F ‘?

Role ambiguity

Role conflict

Other-
________~ .~_..

NOTE

29

27

4

I
I
I
7

20

5

3

2
3
2

I
1
8

13
3
IO
9
5
7
7
5
4

2
6

I
s –

1. Details of the research surveyed can be obtained from the author.

REFERENCES

Argyris, C. (1964). i~r~~p~~so~~ competence and orgunizafio~~~ e@ectiveness. Homewo~, IL:
Irwin.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership andperjformance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

House’s Path-Goal Theory 309

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Evans, M.G. (1968). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship. Unpublished

Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Evans, M.G. (1970). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship.

Organizational Behavior and Human Pe$ormance, S,277-298.
Evans, M.G. (1979). Leadership. In S. Kerr (Ed.), Organizational behavior. Columbus, OH: Grid

Publishing.
Evans, M.G. (1987). Fiihrungstheorien-Weg-ziel-theorie. In A. Kieser, G. Reber, & R. Wunderer

(Eds.), Handworterbuch der Ftihrung. Stuttgart, Germany: C.E. Poeschel Verlag.
Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leader effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Georgopoulos, B.S., Mahoney, T.M., & Jones, L.W. (1957). A path-goal approach to productivity.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 41,3&i-353.
Hackman, J.R., & Porter, L.W. (1968). Expectancy theory predictions of work expectancies.

Organizational Behavior and Human Petiormance, 3,417-426.
House, R.J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quaterly, 16,

321-338.
House, R.J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.),

Leadership: the cutting edge. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R.J., & Mitchell, T.R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary

Business, 9, 8 l-97.
Indvick, J. (1986). Path-goal theory of leadership: a meta-analysis. In Proceedings of the Academy of

Management Meetings, 46, 189-192.
Kahn, R.L. (1958). Human relations on the shop floor. In E.M. Hugh-Jones (Ed.), Human relations

and modern management (pp. 43-74). Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books.
Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoeck, J.D., & Rosenthal, R.A. (1964). Organizntional

stress: studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.
Katz, D., Maccoby, N., & Morse, N. (1950). Productivity, supervision, and morale in an ofice

situation. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J.M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement.

Organizational Behavior and Human Peqormance, 22,375-403.
Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. (1964). Managing differentiation and integration in organizations.

Cambridge, MA: Division of Research, Harvard Business School.
Mitchell, T.R. (1974) Expectancy models of job satisfaction, occupational preference, and effort: a

theoretical, methodological and empirical appraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1053-1077.
Schuler, R. (1976). Conflicting findings in path-goal theory leadership research: a suggested

interpretation. Unpublished manuscript, Cleveland State University.
Weed, S., Mitchell, T.R., & Smyser, C. (1976). A test of House’s path-goal theory of leadership in an

organizational setting. Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington.
Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

THE CONTINGENCY MODEL
OF LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS:

ITS LEVELS OF ANALYSIS

Roya Ayman*
lllinois Institute of Technology

Martin M.Chemers
Claremont Mdenna College

Fred Fiedler
University of Washington

The contingency model of leadership effectiveness (Fiedler, 1978) has been the basis for an extensive

body of research. During the last three decades, numerous studies have supported its propositions

(Peters, Hartke, & Pohlmann, 1985; Strube & Garcia, 1981), but the model has also elicited strong

criticisms. This article argues that the contingency model was one of the first models in leadership

research that was theoretically multi-level and methodologically multi-source. New evidence and

alternative perspectives are offered to address the issues concerning the conceptual definitions of the

model’s components, which have often been the subject of debate. The discussion concludes with

productive avenues for future research in the paradigm and its potential contributions to leadership

training and development within a multi-level framework.

INTRODUCTION

The contingency model of leadership effectiveness was presented in its most complete
form in Fiedler (1967) and Fiedler and Chemers (1974). The evolution of the model
and the development of its constructs covers three decades of research. This article
examines the model from a theoretical and methodological perspective. It focuses on

* Direct all correspondence to: Roya Ayman, Department of Psychology, Illinois Institute of Technology,

Chicago, IL 60616-3793.

Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 147-167.

Copyright @ 1995 by JAI Press Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

ISSN: 1048-9843

148 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

the levels of analysis used to determine the various components of the model, to measure
effective leadership, and to define the sources of information for its central variables.

The model predicts that a leader’s effectiveness is based on two main factors: a leader’s
attributes, referred to as task or relationship motivational orientation (formerly referred
to as style), and a leader’s situational control (formerly referred to as situational
favorability). The model predicts that leaders who have a task motivational orientation
compared to those who have a relationship orientation or motivation will be more
successful in high- and low-control situations. Relationship oriented leaders compared
to task-oriented leaders will be more effective in moderate control situations (Fiedler,
1978). A leader is designated as “in match” in situations where the model predicts high
group performance and “out of match”in situations of low group performance (Fiedler
& Chemers, 1984).

The model is, by design, multi-level and multi-source. That is, measures of the leader’s
motivational orientation are based on the leader’s responses (individual level);
characteristics of the situation have been measured by the leader’s report and/ or that
of subordinates and experimenters (multi-level and multi-source), and outcomes have
been assessed at the group level, primarily group performance (Fiedler, 1978) as
determined by objective measures, supervisor ratings, and averaged follower satisfaction
(Rice, 1981). A few studies used outcomes related to the leader as an individual (e.g.,
stress, performance). A few studies have examined the model at the dyadic, leader-
subordinate level (e.g., Fiedler, Potter, Zais, & Knowlton, 1979). Most generally, the
model has defined the leadership effectiveness at the group level of analysis. In fact,
it may be appropriate to say that this is the first model in leadership effectiveness research
that was designed in a multi-level-of-analysis framework (Dansereau, personal
communication).

The model has been the target of numerous criticisms through its evolution (e.g.,
Ashour, 1973; Graen, Alvares, Orris, & Martella, 1971; Graen, Orris, & Alvares, 1971;
Schriesheim & Kerr 1977; Vecchio, 1977) and has been an impetus for over 200 empirical
studies. After three decades of research, two meta-analyses (i.e., Peters, Hartke, &
Pohlmann, 1985; Strube & Garcia, 1981) have tested its criteria-related validity. The
results, overall, have supported the model. Both meta-analyses agreed that the
laboratory studies yielded stronger support than the field studies, and both provided
recommendations for improvement. Most of the recommendations suggested a need
to expand and refine the definitions of situational control and of the factors that
contribute to situational control.

This article defines the constructs which determine the model and reviews the
operational definitions. Although there have been several reviews of the model, it has
been about 16 years since the last complete review (Fielder, 1978). Confusion still exists
regarding the model’s components and their relationship with each other. In this article,
new and old evidence is discussed to clarify these misunderstandings. The model’s
constructs are: (1) leader’s characteristics, (2) situational control, and (3) leadership
effectiveness. Table 1 gives a summary of the way each of these variables in the model
has been defined and measured.

This article seeks to demonstrate that the strength of the contingency model lies in
its use of a multi-level and multiple-sources approach in defining leadership effectiveness.
Specifically, as presented in Table 1, measures of the leader’s orientation are drawn

Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness 149

Table 1
Summary of Contingency Model’s Variables with Their Conceptual Level

of Analysis, Measure, and Source of Information

Variables Level Measure Source

Leader’s Motivational
Orientation

Situational Control
Group Climate

Task Structure

Authority

Effectiveness
Satisfaction

Performance

Stress

Individual Least Preferred
Coworker (LPC) Scale

Group Group Atmosphere (GA)

Leader-Member Relation

Sociometric Method

Individual

Individual

Task Structure Scale or

Type of Job

Position Power Scale

Group or Dyadic Job Descriptor Index

(JDJ)

Group Supervisory Rating

Archival Data

Individual Fiedler’s Job Stress Scale Leader

Leadet

Leader or Averaged

Group Score

Leader or Experimenter

Leader Experiment

Superior

Subordinate

Superior
Experimenter

Org. Records

from the leader; outcome measures are typically taken from sources independent of
the leader, such as supervisor ratings or objective performance measures. Situational
variables have been specified in a number of ways, many of which are conceptually
and operationally independent both from leader variables and sources of the outcome
criteria (e.g., experimental manipulations, observer ratings of organizational
characteristics).

The independence of the theoretical variables reduces the model’s vulnerability to
validity threats attendant to single-source ratings and overlapping common-method
variance. Furthermore, even when leader’s characteristics and situational and outcome
variables are provided by leader ratings, as in studies of leader stress (Chemers, Hays,
Rhodewalt, & Wysocki, 1985), the predicted interactions among the variables are of
a nature (i.e., both complex and counterintuitive) such that the interactions are unlikely
to be the result of consistency factors or demand characteristics (Orne, 1962).

In the sections that follow, we address the levels of analysis and sources of information
with respect to: (1) the leader’s motivational orientation, (2) the variables that contribute
to the leader’s situational control, (3) various individual, group, and organizational
outcomes, (4) the new directions, and (5) the applications of the contingency model.

LEADERSHIP MOTIVATIONAL ORIENTATION

Although past reviews (e.g., Rice 1978a, 1978b) have been quite thorough, there are
a few issues regarding the conceptualization of the scale and its use that were not

150 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

clarified. In order to address these points, this section presents key evidence that
elucidates these issues. The leader’s orientation is measured by a scale referred to as
“least preferred coworker” (LPC) scale. The scale’s instructions ask the respondent to
identify within the context of all the persons with whom the respondent has ever worked:

the one person in your life with whom you could work least well. This individual may
or may not be the person you also dislike most. It must be the one person with whom
you had the most difficulty getting a job done, the one single individual with whom
you would least want to work-a boss, a subordinate, or a peer (Fiedler & Chemers,
1984, p. 17).

Various closely related forms of the LPC scale have consisted of from 16 to 22, eight-
point, bipolar adjective scales on which the respondent’s least preferred coworker is
described. Regardless of the version, the respondent’s score is calculated by summing
across all items. When the LPC score has been treated categorically, the cutoff points
to categorize the score have not always been consistent across studies. In some cases,
extreme scores have been used (cutoffs usually have been based on a standard deviation
on each side of the mean or the top and bottom 10% or thirds of the distribution).

In other cases, a median or mean split has been used to categorize high and low LPC

scores. In recent years, a few studies have used the LPC score as a continuous score,
examining the magnitude of its relation to outcome variables.

Psychometric Questions Concerning the LPC Scale

This section discusses the validity and reliability of the LPC scale, with the special
intent of clarifying past misconceptions with respect to the measurement and meaning

of the construct. We address both the psychometric properties of the scale and its validity
and utility as a research tool. Rather than measuring a leader’s attitudes, expectations,

and self-reported behaviors, the LPC scale seeks to infer a respondent’s (leader’s)
investment in task accomplishment through his/ her reactions to a coworker who thwarts
accomplishment. The degree to which the respondent gives a negative rating of the “least
preferred coworker” presumably reflects the respondent’s frustration or anger.

Two terms in the instructions are especially important-that is, “least” and

“coworker.” The term “least” demands that the person rated is not just any undesirable
coworker in the rater’s experience but the single worst ever encountered. The intent
is to create a strong stimulus that will draw the greatest level of reaction from the
respondent. Asking a respondent to describe two different coworkers as a means of
assessing the reliability of the measure is not appropriate. For each rater, there should
be only one appropriate stimulus: the least preferred coworker.

The term “coworker” rather than “subordinate” or “follower” is intentionally vague,
allowing the respondent to rate a peer, superior, or subordinate. Finally, the frame of
reference for identifying this poor coworker is the respondent’s entire working history,
avoiding an emphasis on the current situation. Here, the attempt is to obtain a stable,
affective reaction. The items on which the least preferred coworker are rated are not
descriptors of particular behaviors or task-related abilities. They are global, evaluative
adjectives. The ratings of the stimulus thus reflect a general evaluative response (i.e.,

Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness 151

an attitude) toward a person who has interfered with the attainment of a more or less
highly valued goal (e.g., task accomplishment). In sum, the LPC reflects a broad
emotional reaction to a poor coworker, revealing how important the rater considers
task success to be.

The LPC score clearly has been the most controversial component of the contingency
model. It has been interpreted as a measure of psychological distance, leader orientation,
and motivational hierarchy. All of these interpretations apply to some extent. This lack
of consensus has been very disturbing to those with a low tolerance for ambiguity.
Whether we now call LPC a measure of leader orientation, the term favored by Ayman
and Chemers (1991), or a motivational index, the term favored by Fiedler (1978), is
not of critical importance. As we shall see, the difference in operational terms turns
out to be one of emphasis rather than of substance.

Questions of the construct validity of the LPC scale have engendered debates and
controversies. Three approaches have been taken to respond to these debates. One has
examined the scale’s item content. A second has addressed issues of convergent and
divergent validity, and a third has studied the relationship between the LPC score and
leader behavior. Each of these approaches is now considered.

Item Content
The discussion surrounding the nature of the adjectives included in the scale has been

concerned with the different number of adjectives that were descriptors of work-related
traits (e.g., lazy or industrious) versus the number of relationship-relevant descriptors
(e.g., friendly or close). Rice (1978b) referred to a series of studies (published and
unpublished) demonstrating that the scale has two factors (task and people orientation).
He also demonstrated that the structure has varied for high and low LPC respondents,
and the intercorrelation between the factors across studies has also varied. Edwards,
Rode, and Ayman (1989) compared the responses of ROTC cadets to the leader
behavior questionnaire (LBDQ), leader opinion questionnaire (LOQ or LEAD), and
LPC scale, using confirmatory factor analyses. They found that the three scales of
LBDQ, LOQ, and LEAD had similar two-factor structures (consideration and initiation
of structure) and that the LPC scale did not match this factor structure.

Rice (1978b) argued that “the potential importance of these factor analytic data is
indicated by examining the relationship between LPC factor scores and external
criteria” (p, 110). Rice and Seaman (1981) explored the relationship of task versus
relationship adjective sets with outcome variables. Using a 22-item scale, they found
that an overall score and a score based only on task items seemed to have quite similar
relationships to outcome criteria. Apparently, the variations in item content of the scale
do not threaten the criterion-related validity of the total LPC scale.

Convergent-Divergent Validity
During the past 30 years of research on LPC, several studies have examined the LPC

scale’s construct validity through convergent and divergent validity studies in which
LPC scores are associated with other trait measures. The earlier studies reported
correlations below .30 between the various traits and the LPC scale, establishing the
LPC scale as an independent construct (Fiedler, 1967). Recent studies have shown that
respondents’self-monitoring score (Ayman & Chemers, 199 1; Ayman & Abenate, 1994),

152 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

gender (Powell, Butterfield, Mainiero, 1981; Schneier, 1978), values and intelligence
(Kennedy, Houston, Korsgaard, & Gal10 (1987) are non-linearly related to the LPC
scale.

Rice (1978a) reported a low negative linear relationship between the LPC score (that
is, a low LPC person scoring higher) and measures of self-evaluation, including
intelligence (Bons, Bass, & Komorita, 1970), achievement (Burke, 1965), and being
agreeable (Shima, 1968). He also reported a positive relationship (that is, high LPC
person scoring higher) with social cognitive complexity. A pattern of results relating
the LPC score to measures of confidence, attention, and cognitive complexity, revealed
that low LPC persons were more interested in, and knowledgeable about, variables
in the task domain whereas high LPC persons evidenced a similar involvement with
aspects of the interpersonal or relationship domain. Rice concluded that the LPC scale
reflects a basic value orientation (toward task achievement in low LPCs and toward
interpersonal relations in high LPCs) and these values influence attitudes towards
various factors in the leadership environment.

Two studies of job satisfaction provide direct support of the value-attitude
interpretation of the LPC construct. In both a laboratory experiment (Rice, Marwick,
Chemers, & Bentley, 1982) and an organizational survey (Chemers & Ayman, 1985)
low LPC leaders showed a significantly stronger relationship between performance
measures and job satisfaction than did high LPC leaders. The high LPCs showed a
stronger relationship than the lows between job satisfaction and measures of group
atmosphere and interpersonal harmony. Consistent with other studies that have
demonstrated a moderating effect of work values (e.g., growth need strength, need for
achievement) on satisfaction-performance relationships (e.g., Abdel-Halim, 1980), these
findings reinforce the view of LPC as a measure of values or motivational orientations
of the respondents.

Leader Behavior
The third construct validity technique involves relating the LPC scale to leader

behavior measures. Fiedler and Chemers (1974) referred to the LPC score as a measure
of the leader’s style. Whereas it may have seemed rational then to relate the LPC score
to leader behavior, several issues of concern need to be addressed. First, as already
established, the LPC scale measures a respondent’s attitudes, values, and motivational
orientation, not his or her behavior. Although attitudes and values may be the basis
for an individual’s behavior, attitude/values and behavior do not bear an isomorphic
relationship, and therefore, the relationship between a leader’s LPC score and a
particular leader behavior is an empirical question. Second, recognition of the strong
effect of cognitive and information processing biases in the perception of leader behavior
(Lord & Maher, 1991) has called into question the role of behavioral measures as valid
indicators of “actual” leader behavior.

Given these caveats related to the measurement of leader behavior, the relationship
between the LPC and leaders’behaviors is important not only from a leadership-process
perspective but also because it can assist in clarifying two dominant hypotheses about
the LPC: the Value-Attitude (Rice 1978a) and the Motivational Hierarchy (Fiedler,
1978) hypotheses. For the value-attitude hypothesis to be supported, the research should
show significant and consistent main effects for the LPC scale and measures of leader

Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness 153

behavior. For the motivational hierarchy hypothesis to be validated, the results should
have demonstrated an interaction effect of a leader’s LPC score with his or her
situational control predicting the leader’s behavior. Rice (1978a), by including main
effects that were present in studies with significant interaction effects, concluded that
across studies there were an equal number of findings supporting both hypotheses. This
conclusion may have been premature because some of these main effects were part of
results that supported interaction effects.

We argued earlier that the LPC scale is an attitude measure with a strong emphasis
on the affective component. However, evidence also supported the fact that although
the LPC reflects the respondent’s reaction to a person in a situation, it also reflects
the respondent’s values and goals (i.e., emphasis on task accomplishment or relationship
with people), which are the motivational forces behind his/ her actions. The results of
the interaction effects of leader’s LPC score and situational control on measures of
leader behavior demonstrate that the relationship of the leader’s LPC score to the
leader’s behavior is moderated by the situation (e.g., Bons & Fiedler, 1976; Borden,
1980; Chemers, 1969; Frost, 1981; Fiedler, 1967, 1972; Fielder 8z Garcia, 1987; Larson,
Rowland, 1973; Sample & Wilson, 1965). For example, high LPC leaders behaved more
considerately toward group members in moderately stressful conditions than low LPC
leaders; low LPC leaders behaved more considerately than highs in situations where
they felt in control. On the other hand, high LPC leaders behaved with more emphasis
on the task than low LPC leaders in situations where they felt in control, and the low
LPC leaders behaved with more focus on the task than high LPC leaders when they
were in moderately stressful conditions. These shifts in behavioral manifestations of
LPC score may be indicative of a hierarchy of the leaders’ goals motivating them to
act. That is, in situations where individuals feel that their primary values, goals, or
motivational orientations are not met, they act in a way to satisfy them, and if they
are satisfied, their secondary goals or values will direct their behavior. It is important
to note that in several of the above-mentioned studies, leader’s behavior was measured
by objective techniques-for example, in-basket exercise responses (Larson 8z Rowland,
1973).

In summary, the value-attitude and motivational hierarchy are not incompatible
hypotheses. Rather, one focuses on the measure of LPC and the other on the construct
it represents. They both agree that LPC measures values or goals. However, the former
assumed that individual’s values will always be manifested in specific behaviors (Rice,
1978a) and the latter (Fiedler, 1978) assumed that values or goals may or may not be
manifested in a particular behavior. In the latter case, the vehicle that moderates the
behavioral manifestation is the situation. The motivational hierarchy is more in line
with other social-psychological views on the relationship between attitude and behavior
(Ajzen, 1987; Fazio, 1990).

In addition, the relationship of the LPC score and leader behavior can only be studied
when the issues of measurement of leader behavior are considered with great care.
Therefore, although we concur with Rice’s position that research on this relationship
may provide a better understanding of the LPC score, the path is not as smooth and
clear as it may seem.

Although the evidence on the construct validity of the LPC scale is not conclusive,
some conclusions do seem reasonable. A low LPC score is a reflection of a negative

154 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

affect emanating from frustration with the inability to complete the task at hand. A
low score may represent those individuals who have a self-concept that is strongly
associated with accomplishment. The evidence suggests that LPC is a measure of a
respondent’s inner state, not a measure of his/ her behavior patterns.

Reliability

As a final note to the review of the LPC scale’s psychometric properties, its reliability
is now discussed. The reliability of the LPC scale has been measured both by examining
its internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The internal consistency of the scale
has always been fairly high. The average internal consistency coefficient reported is .88
(Rice, 1978b), and more recently, Ayman and Chemers (1991) reported Cronbach’s
alpha of .90. The test-retest reliability of the scale parallels other personality measures
with a median stability coefficient of .67 (Rice, 1978b; Fiedler, 1978). Rice’s (1978b)
review included 23 studies on test-retest reliability of the scale. The time lapse in the
these studies ranged from two days to two-and-a-half years. The scale seems to meet
the established criteria for reliability.

Summary of the Review on the LPC Scale
Overall, the findings about the psychometric properties of the LPC scale have

demonstrated that the nature of the adjectives included in the scale may affect its
structure, but it is not critical to the scale’s functionality. Based on the existing evidence,
it is safe to say that the LPC scale is a measure of the internal state of the leader. Whether
it measures values, motivation attitude, or goals is not totally resolved. However, based
on Markus and Wurf (1987), all of these concepts are variables that operate in
determining the working self, though they vary in their level of specificity.

The LPC scale is a measure whose history and approach creates unique advantages
and disadvantages. As an indirect measure of values and/ or motivational orientation,
it is less susceptible to demand characteristics or social desirability effects. On the other
hand, the lack of a clear theoretic-deductive explanation makes the LPC construct
appear mysterious and unscientific. The predictive utility of the construct as evidenced
in the comprehensive meta-analyses (Strube & Garcia, 1981; Peters, Hartke, &
Pohlmann, 1985) does encourage us to continue attempts to understand the concept
better.

SITUATIONAL CONTROL

The other central construct in contingency model research, situational control, has been
operationalized in various ways. It is conceptually defined as the leader’s sense of
influence and control afforded by the situation (Fiedler, 1978). In most of the research,
three components of the situation have been identified as contributors to a sense of
predictability and control: Leader-Member Relationship (formerly referred to as group
atmosphere), Task Structure, and Position Power.

In the following sections, each of the three components of situational control is
discussed. Each component is defined both theoretically and methodologically. From
a methodological perspective, both the measurements and the source of information
for the component across studies are examined. Finally, the relationship among the

Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness 155

three components is presented, as well as their relationship with the leader’s motivational
orientation.

Leader-Member Relations

This construct refers to the amount of cohesiveness in the work team and the support
of the team for the leader. Leader-member relations is the most important aspect of
the situation, because if the leader lacks group support, energy is diverted to controlling
the group rather than toward planning, problem-solving, and productivity. Under these
conditions, the leader’s influence is weakened, and he or she can not rely on the team
to achieve and implement the goal.

In early laboratory research of the model, the group-atmosphere scale (Fiedler, 1967)
was used to assess either experimentally manipulated or naturally occurring work team
cohesion. The measure was completed by all participants. The scale consisted of 10
eight-point bipolar items. In studies where sociometric choice was use to manipulate
group cohesion, the statistical relationship between the score on the group atmosphere
scale and sociometric manipulation was positive and substantial (e.g., Chemers &
Skrzypek, 1972).

More recently, the Leader-Member Relation (LMR) scale has been used to assess
this construct. This measure was first introduced as a training tool (Fiedler, Chemers,
& Mahar, 1976). It consists of eight five-point scale items describing the relationship
of the team members with each other and their loyalty and responsiveness to the leader.
The LMR scale has good internal reliability-Cronbach’s alpha of.80 (e.g., Ayman &
Chemers, 1991).

Leader-member relations is theoretically conceptualized at the group level. In much
of the experimental and field studies a group average on Group Atmosphere scale was
used to determine group cohesion (e.g., Chemers & Skrzypek, 1972, Geyer 8z Julian,
1973, Csoka & Fiedler, 1972). In some of the more recent field studies, the leader has
been the source of information about this construct. However, the leaders’ scores
represented their experiences with their group as a whole, not with individual
subordinates in dyadic relationships (e.g., Ayman & Chemers, 1991).

The leader-member relations scale has shown strong construct validity. The group
atmosphere scale and the leader-member relation scale are highly correlated–r = .88
(Fiedler, 1978). Neither of the scales has shown a correlation with the leader’s LPC
scale (e.g., Chemers, Hays, Rhodewalt, & Wysoki, 1985; Fiedler, 1978; McNamara,
1968). However, group atmosphere has been correlated with some outcome variables
like leader’s experience of stress with the subordinates (Chemers et al., 1985). The
construct validity of the leader-member relations scale demonstrates that it is a valid
measure depicting the group’s cohesion and loyalty to the leader. The test of validity
has been ascertained by high correlations between two different measures and from
multiple sources (i.e., the group and/or the leader). It is independent of the leader’s
orientation even when the leader has been the source of information for both the LPC
score and the leader-member relation score. This is a significant strength in the model
because in field studies, the leader is typically the source of this information.

156 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

Task Structure

This second component of Situational Control represents the clarity and certainty
in task goals and procedures that allow the leader confidently to guide the group’s
activities. In laboratory studies, the variable was usually manipulated by the choice of
assigned tasks that varied on Shaw’s (1963) criteria for task structure (Fiedler, 1978).
In field studies, task structure ratings can be provided by a knowledgeable observer,
such as a superior. A scale for rating task structure by a supervisor or investigator was
developed by Hunt (1967).

More recent field research has employed the Task Structure Rating Scale developed
as part of the “Leader Match” training program (Fiedler, Chemers, & Mahar, 1976;
Fiedler & Chemers, 1984). The self-report scale consists of 10 items incorporating Shaw’s
(1963) dimensions of goal clarity, goal path multiplicity, solution specificity, and
outcome quantifiability. Based on research that indicated that task-relevant experience
and training enhanced task structure (Fiedler, 1970; Chemers, Rice, Sundstrom, &
Butler, 1975), an additional two-item subscale assessing the leader’s experience and
training was added to the scale. Information on the total scale’s reliability is not
available. However, Ayman and Chemers (1991) reported a Cronbach’s alpha of .81
for the first section of the scale.

In studies where the measure of task structure has been based on the leader’s
perception, the intercorrelation of LPC score and task structure score has not been
reported. Part of the reason may be due to the fact that task structure is a single
component of the situational control dimension and only the correlations between
situational control and other variables are usually reported. In addition, until recently,
task structure was objectively rated by the experimenter or the leader’s supervisor in
most studies.

The sense of predictability and certainty provided by a task with clear goals and
procedures contributes to the overall level of situational control experienced by the
leader. Conceptually, task structure is a group-level variable. The task being measured
includes all the activities that the leader must accomplish to move the group toward
its collective goal. In contrast to some models, the task being measured is the leader’s
task, not the task of individual subordinates being supervised by the leader. For
example, a task requiring high levels of interdependence among subordinates might
increase complexity and reduce task structure for the leader.

Operationally, task structure has been defined by leader self-reports, by ratings of
observers or superiors, or by manipulation of assigned tasks. Although the measurement
of the variable sometimes occurs at the individual level, in combination with other
situational control variables, it represents an aspect of the group environment in which
the leader functions. As shown, in Table 1, however, it is an individual-level variable
about the Leader’s Task.

Position Power

This component of situational control is defined as the administrative authority
bestowed on the leader by the organization or other source of authority-for example,
the experimenter. Fiedler (1978) advised that position power assessments should be
supplied by the leader’s supervisor, due to the possibility of distortion of information

Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness 157

by self-report. However, in most field studies, the leader’s self-report has been used
(Fiedler & Chemers, 1984). This is a five-item scale that measures the leader’s
discretionary power to reward and punish, job-relevant expertise, and official status.
Internal reliability data are available for only one study (Ayman & Chemers, 1991),
where it had a low Cronbach’s Alpha of .3 1. While a single reliability coefficient is
not conclusive, it may be that the low internal consistency is the result of the
multidimensional nature of the scale, which measures several bases of power. In most
field research, leaders are chosen from a single organizational level with similar position
power. No relationship has been found between leader’s LPC score and the leader’s
reported Position Power score.

Similar to the Task Structure, Position Power has been defined at the individual
level, for the leader. It has been manipulated by experimental design, described by the
leader’s supervisor, or measured through the leader’s perception (see Table 1). Like Task
Structure, it contributes to the overall level of control in the leader’s situation, and may
be conceptualized as either a group- or individual-level variable depending on the
analysis.

Summary of Situational Control and Social Power

The three components of situational control parallel French and Raven’s (1959) five
bases of power. Power has been defined as the ability to influence others. Situational
Control has also been defined as providing the leader with the ability to influence and
gain control (Bass, 1991). French and Raven identified the expert and referent sources
of power as sources based on knowledge and expertise regarding the task and the
strength or solidity of the social relationships. Research has indicated that these two
sources of power have the most efficacious and lasting effects in social influence
(Podsakoff & Schriesheim, 1985; Yukl & Taber, 1983). Referent power based on the
quality of the social relationship is most similar to the contingency model variable of
“Leader-Member Relations.” Expert power with its emphasis on task knowledge bears
much in common with “Task Structure.” The three other sources of power-coercive,
reward, and legitimate-reflect on individual’s authority. These three sources have
shown to be inter-correlated to the point that some have referred to it as position power
(Bass, 1991). Their effects have been debated. Thus, they do not seem to have as robust
and lasting effect as the referent and expert sources (Podsakoff & Schrieshiem, 1985).
In the contingency model, these power sources are given the least weight in the
assessment of situational control.

The weighing of the three components of situational control was originally ordinal.
Fiedler (1967) specified group atmosphere (leader-member relations) to be most
important. Task Structure came second, and Position Power was third. The analytic
strategy typically involved dividing groups at the median on each variable and
combining the resultant designations into one of eight cells, or “octants.“This approach
had the ad hoc effect of weighing leader-member relations twice as strongly as task
structure, which was weighted twice as strongly as position power (i.e., 412: 1 weighing
ratio). Later empirical research related measures of each variable to a rating of overall
control and predictability and found that the inductively derived weights were very close
to the 4:2: 1 ratios (Nebeker, 1975).

158 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

The self-rating Leader Match scales (Fiedler & Chemers, 1984) are adjusted for the
prescribed weights by the maximum number of points possible on each scale (i.e., LMR
scale, 40 points; TS scale, 20; PP scale, 10). The summed scale values provide a measure
of overall Situational Control, which can be compared to the cutting points for high,
moderate, and low levels of control. Recent field studies have used the normative cutoff

points (e.g., Giffort & Ayman, 1989) or median (e.g., Ayman & Chemers, 1991) or
tripartite splits (e.g., Chemers et al., 1985) of sample distributions to assign leaders to

conditions.

THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
WITHIN THE CONTINGENCY MODEL

The variables that define the leader’s personal characteristic (the LPC) and the leader’s
situational control (leader-member relations, task structure, and position power) are
both conceptually and psychometrically independent. This is one of the most valuable
and unique properties of the contingency model. In studies where the leader is the only
source of information for both personal and situational variables, or where the situation
is defined by an independent observer, the LPC and situational control scores are not
statistically related. Problems of multi-colinearity and single-source biases, which
bedevil much current leadership-research methodology (Padsakoff & Organ, 1986;

Spector, 1987) are not a serious problem for contingency model research. Although
LPC and situational control are uncorrelated, some dependency does appear among
the three situational variables.

In laboratory experiments, the situational control variables were manipulated and
their relationship was, by design, independent. In field studies, task structure and

position power have been found to be correlated between r = .75 (Chemers & Fiedler,
1986) and r = .33 (Chemers et al., 1985). The actual level of interdependence of the
three factors may have varied from study to study because of the level of the manager,
the type of company, or the source of information on each factor. Overlap among the
situational control variables provides a strong rationale for employing the composite
situational control score.

Relationship of the Model to Outcome (Dependent) Variables

The contingency model of leadership effectiveness has defined its criterion of
effectiveness primarily as work group performance. However, some studies have
examined effects on other criteria, such as subordinate satisfaction or leader’s reported
symptoms of stress.

The operational definition of performance has been based partially on the nature
of task and the level of the leader’s position. Wherever possible, productivity was defined
by objective measures, such as win-lose records for basketball teams, tons per person-
hour for steel production crews, and accuracy for bombing crews. In cases where the
nature of the tasks required a subjective evaluation, at least two raters evaluated the
quality of performance. Such tasks typically consisted of composing a story, developing
a report, or recommending a program. In most of the organizational field studies, the
manager’s performance was rated by a superior.

Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness 159

The important point to note is that the contingency model has used a variety of
performance measures that have been relevant to the work group objective. However,
regardless of whether the performance was measured subjectively or objectively and
whether it was a measure of quality or quantity, it was always assessed by an agent
outside of the work team.

We pointed out earlier that the contingency model was designed primarily to predict
work team performance. The empirical development of the model made clear that only
the interaction of personal and situational parameters could predict group performance.
One of the most important premises of the contingency principle is that neither leader
characteristics nor situational factors alone can predict performance. The reviews and
meta-analyses have established the essential validity of that premise. Person-situation
match, but neither person nor situation alone, has been consistently predictive of
performance outcomes.

In the early stages of the development of the model, Fiedler (1967) argued that group
productivity was the most important and appropriate outcome variable in leadership
research. He pointed out that chief executive officers, football coaches, and symphony
conductors are not retained and rewarded for making their subordinates happy and
satisfied but for making them productive and profitable. This point is still apt today,
but organizational theorists and practitioners have come to recognize that variables
such as commitment, loyalty, and satisfaction can have important implications for
organizational performance and profitability.

In 1977, Schriesheim and Kerr criticized the contingency model for its lack of
attention to subordinate satisfaction. If we turn our attention to the prediction and
explanation of subordinate satisfaction and other attitudinal and affective states, what
might be the most useful ways to proceed? A logical approach might be to look for
the same confluence of person and situational variables that are effective in the
prediction of performance-that is, leader-situation match.

In 1981, Rice responded to Schriesheim and Kerr’s (1977) criticism with a review
of existing studies examining the relationship of the contingency model variables to
job satisfaction. Although some inconsistencies exist across studies, Rice concluded that
the bulk of the evidence supports the view that subordinate satisfaction is highest when
leaders are in match. Subsequent studies of managers in the United States (Giffort &
Ayman, 1989) and in Mexico (Ayman & Chemers, 1991) have supported Rice’s
conclusions. Subordinates of low LPC managers in high-control situations and of high
LPC managers in moderate-control situations were more satisfied than their “out-of-
match” counterparts.

Job satisfaction is a multi-faceted construct. The contingency model effects reported
here occur primarily on measures of satisfaction with the superior or satisfaction with
coworkers (i.e., measures of work team cohesion) rather than on measures of satisfaction
with pay or promotion which are variables frequently outside the leader’s control. It
is interesting to note that match (i.e., the interaction of LPC and Situational Control)
is a better predictor of subordinate satisfaction than is the leader’s score on the leader-
member relations scale, indicating the importance of multiple, independent measures
of group effects.

Although the validity of the contingency model in the prediction of group
performance seems well established and its utility for predicting subordinate satisfaction

160 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

is promising, many gaps in understanding remain which reduce the model’s explanatory
value. The model continues, however, to instigate research that may enrich our
understanding of the processes that underlie match effects. The next section will briefly
describe some new directions in contingency model research involving efforts at the
individual level to understand the phenomenological and emotional effects of match;
at the dyadic level to predict performance and satisfaction; and multi-trait approaches
in which person-level variables besides the LPC are integrated into the model.

NEW DIRECTIONS

Individual-level Analyses

A series of studies have examined the phenomenological experience of style-situation
match on leaders. Garcia (1983) compared high and low LPC persons working on

individual tasks that varied in the degree of certainty. Certainty was manipulated by
providing half of the subjects with task-relevant training that increased task structure
and subjective reports of certainty. Garcia reported that low LPC persons in the high-

certainty condition (training) and high LPC persons in the low-certainty (no training)
condition made stronger attributions to their own ability as the cause of performance
than did low LPC persons in the low certainty condition or high LPCs in the high
certainty condition. In a laboratory experiment on group leadership, Nahavandi (1983)
found that “in-match”leaders, as defined by contingency model variables, reported higher
levels of involvement and interest in the experience than did “out-of-match” leaders.

Chemers, Hays, Rhodewalt, and Wysocki (1985) measured the relationship of
contingency model match to job stress and stress-related illness among university
administrators. Department chairs who were out of match reported significantly higher
levels of stress and stress-related illness than did their in-match counterparts. These
findings were replicated in a follow-up study (Chemers, Hill, & Sorod, 1986) of high
school administrators. As in the earlier studies, in-match leaders reported less stress
and illness, as well as higher levels of job satisfaction, than did out-of-match leaders.
Shirakashi (1991) closely replicated the results of these match-stress studies using a
sample of managers in Japan.

A laboratory experiment by Chemers, Sorod, and Akimoto (reported in Chemers,
1993) found that in-match leaders as compared to out-of-match leaders reported: (1)
more positive mood states, (2) greater confidence in their ability to lead, and (3) more
internal attributions to their own ability and effort to explain group performance. A
number of theorists and researchers have recently focused on the role of positive affective
states, such as confidence and mood, on leadership performance (e.g., Murphy, 1992;
May, 1993; Staw & Barsade, 1993; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; House & Shamir, 1993).
Leadership match may be a powerful moderator of contemporaneous situational factors

affecting such affective states.

Dyadic-Level Analyses

The study of dyads in the contingency model has not received much attention. Two
studies that have examined dyads have shown trends that indicate that the nature of

Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness 161

the task may interact with different compositions of leader’s and follower’s LPC score
to predict subordinate satisfaction and performance.

Chemers, Goza, and Plumer (1978) conducted an experiment in which three- person
groups solved a problem for which the leader and one follower had been given
contradictory information in a pre-session briefing. The dyads that were most effective
in solving the problem were those with a high LPC leader and low LPC follower, while
the most ineffective dyads were those that were homogeneous with respect to leader
and follower LPC. Tobey (1992) also found the high-LPC-leader/low-LPC-subordinate
dyads to be most effective in performance on a similarly unstructured task. However,
Tobey (1992) also found that dyads led by low LPCs outperformed dyads led by high
LPCs when the task was more structured. It seems reasonable to expect that the effects
of dyadic composition on both performance and satisfaction would be most
productively addressed in a contingency framework.

Multi-Trait Approach

Weiss and Adler (1984) have suggested a multi-trait approach to organizational
behavior theories. They advise the inclusion of traits that have a theoretical relationship
to outcome criteria or have the potential for expanding the explanatory base of the
theory. The most developed of the new expansions of the contingency model is the
cognitive resource theory (Fiedler, 1993; Fiedler & Garcia, 1987). Fiedler and his
associates have demonstrated that the leader’s ability to make effective use of his or
her cognitive resources (i.e., intellectual ability and job-relevant experience) depends
on a number of contingencies. Job stress from any of several sources (including one’s
boss or subordinates, or the nature of one’s task) interferes with a leader’s ability to
think creatively and use intellectual resources but enhances the value of the well-learned
lessons of experience. The intellectual demands of the task, the cooperativeness of
subordinates, and the leader’s willingness to act directively also moderate the impact
of cognitive resources on group productivity.

Unless the leader acts in a directive manner employing knowledge and insight to
influence group activities, those cognitive resources will have little effect. Furthermore,
compliant and supportive subordinates who respond positively to the leader’s influence
attempts increase the impact of the leader’s directions on group outputs. Finally,
intellectually demanding tasks that place a premium on thoughtful and creative ideas
will increase the relative effects of cognitive processes.

Similar to the cognitive model, cognitive resource theory places an individual-level
phenomenon (the effects of stress on cognition) in a context in which superiors,
subordinates, and task influence relationships with group-level outcomes. Leadership
as a group process, analyzable at the group level, seems to be the overriding emphasis
of these two contingency theories.

Like the contingency model that preceded it, cognitive resource theory assesses the
effects of individual-level variables (i.e., leader intelligence and experience) at a group
level of analysis. Situational parameters, such as task demands, subordinate support,
and environmental stress, moderate the relationships between the individual-level
variables and group-level outcomes, for example, productivity. Cognitive resource
theory adds the process variable of the leader’s level of directiveness to tie together the

162 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

leader and outcome variables. The centrality of job stress in the cognitive resource theory
and in the recent work by Chemers and his associates on leadership match and job
stress suggests the potential for integrating the two models. Future research in that
direction seems warranted.

Another multi-trait approach to contingency-model research has investigated the
moderating role of self-monitoring (Snyder, 1979). Kenny and Zaccaro (1983) have
argued that a leader’s flexibility in adapting to situational characteristics may be a
leadership trait with broad applicability. The self-monitoring construct reflects an
individual’s sensitivity and responsiveness to the social expectations across varying
situations. Since leadership match is based on the degree of fit between the leader’s
motivational orientation and situational characteristics, a leader’s ability to adapt to
situations might moderate the effects of match. Specifically, high self-monitors who
are able to change their behavior to adjust to the expectations of others may be less
susceptible to leader-situation mismatches than would be low self-monitors whose
behavioral style is more rigidly determined by internal values and attitudes.

A recent study by Ayman and Chemers (1991) included the self-monitoring scale
with the contingency model measures administered to 85 middle managers in Mexican
companies. The predicted effects of match on several outcome measures, including
subordinate satisfaction with work and the leader’s effectiveness in conflict
management, were moderated by self-monitoring as expected. Other measures in the
same study, such as subordinate satisfaction with the leader, showed straight match
effects, unaffected by self-monitoring.

These results indicate that multi-trait approaches to leadership effects have great
potential. However, the choice of traits for inclusion must be theoretically driven (Weiss
& Adler, 1984).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The contingency model of leadership has stimulated and guided research for more than
30 years. The greatest strengths of the model reside in: (1) the conceptual and statistical
independence of its central constructs, LPC and Situational Control; (2) its emphasis
on independent and, where possible, objective measures of important organizational
outcomes such as group productivity; (3) its relatively lesser vulnerability to the
invalidation of its constructs and findings as a result of information-processing biases
and methodological weaknesses; and, of course, (4) its proven predictive validity.

The model’s greatest weaknesses arise from its inductive development. The LPC
construct has little face or concurrent validity, and even evidence for its construct validity
requires some faith. The lack of process-based explanations for performance effects
makes both the understanding and application of the model more difficult.

One of the major strengths of the contingency model in practical application is that
about 15 minutes worth of questionnaire administration provides a multi-level analysis
of person-situation match that can be used in selection, placement, training, and
organizational development. Based on the contingency model, the Leader Match
training program (Fiedler & Chemers, 1984) provides a framework for organizational
intervention at the individual, dyadic, and group levels.

Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness 163

During the last three decades, the contingency model has been the subject of extensive
research and vigorous controversy, and yet it is alive and still developing. The individual
and dyadic levels of analysis are being added to the traditional focus on group-level
effectiveness phenomena. Multi-trait approaches may help to illuminate the factors that
underlie its impact. The power of the cognitive resource theory reveals productive
avenues for bridging the gap between the contingency model and other psychological
theories. Finally, the model’s utility in creating practical approaches to leadership
training and organizational development reinforces Kurt Lewin’s dictum that “There
is nothing so practical as a good theory.”

Through training such as Leader Match, which is based on the contingency model
of leadership effectiveness, the leader uses both personal and group data to assess his
or her match in the situation. The validity of this training program has been presented
in numerous documents (Fiedler & Mahar, 1979; Burke dz Day, 1986). Using the model’s
existing research, the leader can then anticipate his or her effectiveness both at a personal
and dyadic level (i.e., experienced stress or subordinate satisfaction) and at a group
level (i.e., performance, subordinates’ satisfaction and morale). With access to such
wisdom, the leader can do “job engineering.” This does not require major changes in
the way the work is done but, through modifying the three situational control constructs,
the leader can affect all levels of work team dynamics and alter group functioning.

Because the model is multi-level, (that is, it represents leadership as a dynamic
exchange of various levels of analyses present in a natural team building setting instead
of individually focused model-only the leader or the subordinates), it allows for
interventions at different levels. For example, at the individual level, the leader is made
aware of the his or her strength and environmentally available resources and learns
job engineering. This is helpful for leadership development programs. A focus on the
dyadic level will assist in arranging work teams for the highest yield.

Similar to some other leadership theories, the contingency model has also been tested
for validity in other countries (e.g., Ayman & Chemers, 1991; Rubio, 1986; Shima,
1968). In addition, cross-cultural research with the contingency model has incorporated
the effects of work team diversity (e.g., Fiedler, 1966). The employment of a multi-
level approach in which group-level variables, such as leader-member relations, are
conceptualized and measured at the group level of analysis provides a basis for the
inclusion of work team diversity. Diverse group affiliations between leader and followers
(e.g., with respect to religion, language, ethnicity, gender, functional specialization, etc.)
can be addressed in terms of effects on the situational control constructs. Groups marked
by diversity may have lower leader-member relations. Diversity might also affect the
leader’s power and authority or task structure, as cultural differences in customs and
norms affect expectations about the acceptable forms of leadership influence (Triandis,
1993). The ability of the contingency model to incorporate the effects of cultural
differences and diversity provides the potential for building a universal leadership
theory.

Although the contingency model is almost 40 years old, its basic premise, the
interaction of person and situation in the study of leadership effectiveness, provides
a flexibility that allows the model to grow and develop. The levels of analysis approach
offers a framework for utilizing the flexibility that may render productive avenues for
future research.

164 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

REFERENCES

Abdel-Halim, A.A. (1980). Effects of higher order need strength on the job performance-job
satisfaction relationship. Personnel Psychology, 33, 335-347.

Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behavior in personality

and social psychology. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology

(Vol. 20, pp. l-63). New York: Academic.

Ashour, AS. (1973). The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: An evaluation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 339-355.

Ayman, R., & Abenate, D.C. (1994). An expansion of the contingency model: The moderating
influence of self-monitoring. Unpublished manuscript, Illinois Institute of Technology,

Chicago, IL.

Ayman, R., & Chemers, M.M. (1991). The effect of leadership match on subordinate satisfaction
in Mexican organizations: Some moderating influences of self-monitoring. Applied

Psychology: An International Review, 40, 299-3 14.

Bass, B.M. (1991). Bass & StogdillS handbook of leadership: Theory, research, & managerial

applications. 3rd edition. New York: Free Press.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper &
Row.

Bons, P.M., Bass, A.R., & Komorita, S/ (1970). Changes in leadership style as a function of

military experience and type of command. Personnel Psychology, 23, 55 l-568.
Bons, P.M., & Fiedler, F.E. (1976). Changes in organizational leadership and the behavior of

relationship and task motivated leaders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 453473.

Borden, D.F. (1980). Leader-boss stress, personality job satisfaction and performance: Another

look at the inter-relationship of some old constructs in the modem large bureaucracy.

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
Burke, W.W. (1965). Leadership behavior as a function of the leader, the follower, and situation,

Journal of Personality, 33, 60-8 1.
Burke, M.J., & Day, R.R. (1986). Accumulative study of the effectiveness of managerial training.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,232-246.
Chemers, M.M. (1969). Cross-cultural training as a means for improving situational

favorableness. Human Relations, 22, 531-546.

Chemers, M.M. (1993). An integrative theory of leadership. In M.M. Chemers & R. Ayman

(Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 293-319). San

Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Chemers, M.M., and Ayman, R. (1985). Leadership orientation as a moderator of the relationship

between job performance and job satisfaction of Mexican managers. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 11, 359-367.
Chemers, M.M., and Fielder, F.E. (1986). The trouble with assumptions: A reply to Jago and

Ragan. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,560-563.
Chemers, M.M., Goza, B. & Plumer, S.I. (1978). Leadership style and communication process.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association,

Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Chemers, M.M., Hays, R.B., Rhodewalt, F., & Wysocki, J. (1985). A person-environment

analysis of job stress: A contingency model explanation. Journal of Personality and Social
PsychoZogy, 49, 628-635.

Chemers, M.M., Hill, C., & Sorod, B. (1986). Personality-environment match and health:
Support for the contingency model. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the
American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.

Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness 165

Chemers, M.M., Rice, R.W., Sundstrom, E., & Butler, W. (1975). Leader esteem for the least
preferred co-worker score, training, and effectiveness: An experimental examination.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31,401409.

Chemers, M.M., & Skrzypek, G.J. (1972). Experimental test of the contingency model of
leadership effectiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 172-177.

Csoka, L.S., & Fiedler, F.E. (1972) The effect of military training: A test of the contingency

model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8,395-407.
Edwards, J.E., Rode, L.G., & Ayman, R. (1989).The construct validity of scales from four

leadership questionnaires. 171e Journal of General Psychology, 116, 171-181.
Fazio, R.H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model

as an integrative framework. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 75-109). New York: Academic Press.

Fiedler, F.E. (1966). The effect of leadership and cultural heterogeneity on group performance:
A test of the contingency model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2,237-264.

Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fiedler, F.E. (1970). Leadership experience and leadership training-Some new answers to an

old problem. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17,453-470.
Fiedler, F.E. (1972). Personality, motivational systems, and the behavior of high and low LPC

persons. Human Relations, 25, 391-412.
Fiedler, F.E. (1978). The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process. In L.

Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 59-96). New
York: Academic Press.

Fiedler, F.E. (1993). The leadership situation and the black box in contingency theories. In M.M.
Chemers & R. Ayman (I%.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions
(pp.2-28). New York: Academic Press.

Fiedler, F.E., & Chemers, M.M. (1974). Leadership and effective management. Glenview, IL:
Scott, Foresman.

Fiedler, F.E., & Chemers, M.M. (1984). Improving leadership effectiveness: The leader match
concept. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley.

Fiedler, F.E., Chemers, M.M., & Mahar, L. (1976). Improving leadership effectiveness: Zhe leader
match concept. New York: Wiley.

Fiedler, F.E., & Garcia, J.E. (1987). New approach to effective leadership: Cognitive resources
and organizationalperformance. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Fiedler, F.E., & Mahar, L. (1979). A field experiment validating contingency model leadership
training. Journal of Applied of Psychology, 64, 247-254.

Fiedler, F.E., Potter, E.H., Zais, M.M., & Knowlton, W.A. (1979). Organizational stress and
the use and misuse of managerial intelligence and experience. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 64,635~647.

French, J.R., L Raven, B. (1959). The basis of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies
in social power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

Frost, D.E. (1981). The effects of interpersonal stress on leadership effectiveness. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.

Garcia, J.E. (1983). An investigation of a person-situation match interpretation of the esteem
for the least preferred coworker scale (LPC). Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Salt Lake
City, University of Utah.

Geyer, L.J., & Julian, J.W. (1973). Manipulation of situational favorability in tests of the
contingency model. Journal of Psychology, 84, 13-21.

Giffort, D.W., & Ayman, R. (1989). Contingency model and subordinate satisfaction: Mental
health organizations. Paper presented at Academy of Management Annual Conference,
Anaheim, CA.

166 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

Graen, G., Alvares, K.M., Orris, J.B., & Martella, J.A. (1971). Contingency model of leadership
effectiveness: Antecedent and evidential results. Psychological Bulletin, 74, 285-296.

Graen, G., Orris, J.B., & Alvares, K.M. (1971). Contingency model of leadership effectiveness:
Some experimental results. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5.5, 196-201.

House, R.J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and
visionary theories. In M.M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research:
Perspectives and directions (pp. 81-104). New York: Academic.

Hunt, J.G. (1967). Fiedler’s leadership contingency model: An empirical test in three
organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 2, 290-308.

Kennedy, J.K., Houston, J.M., Korsgaard, M.A., & Gallo, D.D. (1987). Construct space of the
least preferred coworker (LPC) scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47,
807-8 14.

Kenny, D.A., & Zaccaro, S.J. (1983). An estimate of variance due to traits in leadership. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 68, 678-685.

Larson, L.L., & Rowland, K.M. (1973). Leadership style, stress, and behavior in performance.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9,407-420.

Lord, R.G., & Maher, K.J. (1991). Leadership and information processing. Boston: Unwin
Hyman.

Markus, H., and Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective.
Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337.

May, ST. (1993). Heavy mettle: The effects of confidence and optimism on leader performance.
Unpublished B.A. thesis, Claremont McKenna College, Claremont, CA.

McNamara, V.D. (1968). Leadership, staff and school effectiveness. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Alberta.

Murphy, S.E. (1992). The contribution of leadership experience and self-efficacy to group
performance under evaluation apprehension. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Nahavandi, A. (1983). The effect of personal and situational factors on satisfaction with
leadership. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.

Nebeker, D.M. (1975). Situational favoribility and environmental uncertainty: An integrative
study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 281-294.

Orne, M.T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular
reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17,776-

783.
Peters, L.H., Hartke, D.D., & Pohlmann, J.F. (1985). Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership:

An application of the meta-analysis procedures of Schmitt and Hunter. Psychological
Bulletin, 97, 274-285.

Podsakoff, P.M., and Schriesheim, C.A. (1985). Field studies of French and Raven’s bases of
power: Critique, reanalysis, and suggestions for future research. Psychological Bulletin,
97,387-411.

Podsakoff, P.M., and Organ, D.W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems
and prospects. Journal of Management, 12,31-41.

Powell, G.N., Butterfield, D.A., & Mainiero, L.A. (1981). Sex-role identity and sex as predictors
of leadership style. Psychological Reports, 49, 829-830.

Puls, E.C. (1988). Fiedler’s contingency model: leader behavior change across situation.
Unpublished M.A. thesis, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL.

Rice, W.R. (1978a). Construct validity of the least preferred co-worker score. Psychological
Bulletin, 8.5, 1199-1237.

Rice, W.R. (1978b). Psychometric properties of the esteem for the least preferred coworker (LPC
Scale). Academy of Management Review, 3, 106-I 18.

Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness 167

Rice, W.R. (1981). Leader LPC and follower satisfaction: A review. Orgunizurional Behavior
and Human Performance, 28, 1-25.

Rice, R.W., Marwick, N.J., Chemers, M.M., 8z Bentley, J.C. (1982). Task performance and
satisfaction: Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) as a moderator. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 8, 534-541.

Rice, R.W., & Seaman, F.J. (1981). Internal analyses of the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC)
scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 109-120.

Rubio, J. (1986). Estudio empiric0 sobre la validez de1 Modelo de la Contingencia de Fiedler
[An empirical study of the validity of Fiedler’s contingency model.] Revista de Psicologia
General y Aplicada, 41,601-614.

Sample, J.A., & Wilson, T.R. (1965). Leader behavior, group productivity, and rating of least
preferred co-worker. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, I, 266-270.

Schneier, C.E. (1978). The contingency model of leadership: An extension to emergent leadership
and leader’s sex. Organizational Behavior and Human performance, 21,220-239.

Schriesheim, C.A., & Kerr, S. (1977). Theories and measures of leadership: A critical appraisal
of current and future directions. In J.G. Hunt and L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The
cutting edge (pp. 9-44). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Shaw, M.E. (1963). Scaling group tasks: A method of dimensional analysis. JSAS Catalogue
of Selected Documents in Psychology, 3(8).

Shima, H. (1968). The leadership between the leader’s modes of interpersonal cognition and the
performance of the group. Japanese Psychological Research, 10, 13-30.

Shirakashi, S. (1991). Job stress of managers: A contingency model analysis. Organizational
Science, 25,42-5 1.

Snyder, M. (1979). Self-monitoring processes. In L. Berkowitx (Ed.), Advances in experimental
socialpsychology (Vol. 12, pp. 81-104). New York: Academic Press.

Spector, P.E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-report affect and perceptions at work:
Myth or significant problem? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72,438443.

Staw, B.M., & Barsade, S.G. (1993). Affect and managerial performance: A test of the sadder-
but-wiser vs. happier and smarter hypotheses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 304-
331.

Strube, M.J., & Garcia, J.E. (1981). A meta-analytic investigation of Fiedler’s contingency model
of leadership effectiveness. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 307-321.

Tobey, A.M. (1992). Subordinate satisfaction with supervision: A dyadic or group phenomenon.
Unpublished M.A. thesis, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL.

Triandis, H.C. (1993). The contingency model in cross-cultural perspective. In M.M. Chemers
8r R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 167-
188). New York: Academic Press.

Vecchio, R.P. (1977). An empirical examination of the validity of Fiedler’s model of leadership
effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 180-206.

Vecchio, R.P. (1980). Alternatives to the least preferred co-worker construct. 27ze Journal of
Social Psychology, I12,2 l-29.

Weiss, H.M., & Adler, S. (1984). Personality and organizational behavior. In B.M. Staw & L.L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. l-50). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.

Yukl, G.A., & Taber, T. (1983). The effective use of managerial power. Personnel, 60, 3744.

4 Micro-level Leadership Theories

Key Points

Understanding leadership theories and models
Traits and behaviours of the individual leader
Influencing skills
Leader-follower relations
Situational influences
Linking theories to the paradigms

How do the paradigms relate to the many leadership theories and concepts? Over the next three
chapters, major leadership theories and ideas are discussed in relation to the paradigms

.

This
chapter describes the evolution of leadership theories and approaches, particularly as they
apply to individual leaders and their relationships with their followers.
Most formal leadership theories were developed in the twentieth century, although many of

the underlying ideas about leadership are much older. These theories tend to deal with specific
facets of leadership or leadership at particular levels breaking the concept into simpler
components for ease of study or in order to develop particular leadership tools. Few writers
address leadership in its complexity or try to link their theories to one another. None addresses
the full range of leadership ideas and levels, although Bass and Yukl have made major attempts
to do so.1
Most theorists ignore the fact that national and dynamic corporate cultures, different

political contexts and multiple stakeholders affect leadership. A comprehensive view of
leadership will not just be internally-focused, but will place leadership in an operating
context. This will allow for interactions with the external world, including with competitors,
governments and politicians, suppliers and alliance partners.
Thus, the leadership field consists of the writings of groups of relatively isolated scholars.

Adopting a broad approach to leadership as advocated in this book requires integrating many
theoretical approaches. Any theory or model that encompassed the full range of internal and
external leadership issues would be very broad, and so probably not detailed or predictive
enough to be useful for empirical researchers. However, writers and practitioners are calling
for a multilevel framework that incorporates leadership effects at individual, group and

Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership : Paradigms and cases. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from trident on 2021-03-03 16:48:56.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
00

4.
S

A
G

E
P

ub
lic

at
io

ns
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

organizational levels.2

The question is, at which organizational levels should leadership be discussed?3 A common
recommendation is to use different management levels: higher levels (executive or upper
echelon management), middle management and lower levels (front-line or entry-level). One
difficulty with this approach is determining the comparability of levels in various
organizations, especially in networked organizations. Yammarino proposes focusing on four
‘groups’ to understand leadership theories and models, namely the individual, dyad (two
person, one-on-one interactions), subgroup and whole group levels.4 However, these levels
tend to be focused internally on the organization and need expanding to include the external
leadership environment.
Ideally, the many facets of leadership should be integrated and viewed holistically, as part

of a dynamic process. However, the linear nature of a book requires this complex set of issues
to be split into smaller elements. Therefore the discussion in the following chapters is
structured around levels of leadership similar to those defined by Yammarino. The micro-level
is covered in this chapter, starting with the individual and proceeding through dyadic to larger
group levels. These theories are sometimes referred to as ‘supervisory theories’. Chapter 5
bridges the micro- and organizational-levels by discussing emotion-based approaches to
leadership that typically emphasize the role of a vision, shared values and other emotional
bases underpinning leadership. In Chapter 6, macro-level approaches focused at higher
organizational levels and on the broader external environment are introduced. The leadership
paradigms relevant to each of the theories are also indicated during the discussion, and each
chapter concludes by integrating its content into the paradigms.

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

The belief that individuals are distinguished as leaders by virtue of their birth, traits or
behaviours places a strong focus on the leader as a special kind of person. This section
considers the characteristics and behaviours associated with these individuals.

Great men

Great Men ideas, based largely on class and birth, were very popular during the nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries. Great Men views propose that people from the upper classes inherit
desirable leadership qualities and the right to lead.5 This applied particularly to men (see Box
4.1 for challenges facing Great Women).
Under the Great Men view, everyone inherited a place in society and expectations or

opportunities rarely change this. Reflecting society at the time, the nineteenth and early
twentieth century business world was also divided into classes, with leaders considered born
to the role, not made. People tended to accept the world as being divided into leaders and

Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership : Paradigms and cases. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from trident on 2021-03-03 16:48:56.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
4.
S
A
G
E
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

followers. Max Weber’s observations about the civil service, with his ideal bureaucratic
ways, reinforced this class division. Those who understood how to manage directed the lesser
classes.6
Early in the twentieth century, ‘the successful executive was generally pictured as

possessing intelligence, imagination, initiative, the capacity to make rapid (and generally wise)
decisions, and the ability to inspire subordinates.’7 Even today, children from certain
dynasties, family business people and royalty are considered, by some, born to rule.
The belief that birth determines a person’s fitness to lead may have diminished over time,

but the often-related notion of the heroic leader, with a strong focus on one key person, still
pervades leadership theory and practice. Attributing the outcome of events to actions of heroic
leaders is common in many cultures, where the fates of organizations, empires, armies or their
followers are attributed to these leaders. This attribution can become extreme when people
hold unrealistic expectations about a leader’s abilities, and leaders can seldom live up to these
high hopes.8

BOX 4.1

Where are the great women leaders?

Compared with ‘Great Men’, the emergence of the ‘Great Woman’ leader was
traditionally much more difficult unless she was born into a leader role. Alternatively, she
could marry into a family from which leaders traditionally come, or take over from her
husband, like the Ghandis in India.
Mary Kay Ash was an exception. Disappointed at how she was treated by a previous

employer, she resolved to build an organization that provides women with opportunities
to excel. In doing so, she created the largest direct seller of skin care products and the
best-selling brand of colour cosmetics in the US.9 Mary Kay Inc. employs more than 500
000 independent beauty consultants in 29 markets world-wide, and has been featured
among the 100 Best Companies to Work for in America three times since the list began in
1984 (see URL: http://www.marykay.com/).
Ash is obviously not alone in her success, but even today relatively few women are in

senior leadership positions in business. Various explanations have been advanced for this,
including that men have an advantage over women in leadership positions because the
business context is male-oriented. ‘Concepts of leadership … are gendered, embedded
inside assumptions, practices, norms, belief systems that make men normal.’10 Men define
leadership and organizations in terms that are appropriate to men, so that when women
enter the leadership arena, they do so within men’s cultural norms.11 In this context, some
people are bemused at Mary Kay Ash’s extravagant and emotional award ceremonies, at
which her top sales-women receive pink Cadillacs or pink fur coats, where she calls her
saleswomen ‘daughter’, and where women’s business suits are colour-coded to indicate
rank.

Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership : Paradigms and cases. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from trident on 2021-03-03 16:48:56.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
4.
S
A
G
E
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

http://www.marykay.com/

Research into the scarcity of women in leadership roles shows that being a leader
makes men feel masculine, whereas for women being a leader does not make them feel
feminine. Instead, women leaders often try to deny their sexuality and gender.12 These
strategies tend to be self-defeating, especially when women are accused of ‘trying too
hard to be one of the boys’. This constant attempt at concealment deprives women of an
important part of their identity and feeling of self, which men derive from traditional
styles of leadership. Thus, given the male culture in many organizations, and the potential
conflict between a woman’s identity and leadership, it is not surprising that relatively few
women are in leadership positions. Nor is it surprising that Mary Kay Ash ‘feminized’ her
organization.

It will become evident that the notion of the heroic leader continues to permeate many
leadership theories and approaches. In terms of the leadership paradigms, the ‘Great Man’
approach fits well with the Classical, Transactional and Visionary leadership ideas, but not
with the distributed leadership behind the Organic paradigm.

Traits

Some researchers argue that regardless of whether leaders are born or made, they are different
from other people.13 Leaders need to have the ‘right stuff, which not everyone has. Identifying
this ‘stuff could help in the search for individuals with leadership potential.
Early attempts to find the essence of leadership were disappointing, as Stogdill’s famous

review of trait studies showed.14 Only two characteristics seemed to help distinguish leaders
from non-leaders with any degree of consistency: leaders were slightly taller and slightly more
intelligent than non-leaders. Of course, Hitler and Napoleon provide examples of men of short
stature who acquired considerable power, as do the Prime Ministers John Howard (Australia)
and Silvio Berlusconi (Italy).
Nearly half a century later, researchers resumed the search for leader traits using improved

measures and looking for traits linked more closely to leadership activities than height.15
While exceptions can always be found, the six traits described in Table 4.1 have been found to
distinguish leaders from non-leaders, at least under the US business model:

Table 4.1

Six leader traits

Drive Desire to lead

Leaders exhibit achievement, motivation,
Leaders want to lead, and are willing to
exercise some power over, and to discipline,

Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership : Paradigms and cases. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from trident on 2021-03-03 16:48:56.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
4.
S
A
G
E
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

ambition, energy, initiative and tenacity. others

Being honest/having integrity Self-confidence

This characteristic enables leaders to form
trusting relationships with followers, and not
violate promises or confidences.

Others’ perceptions of the leader’s self-
confidence are important, as is displaying
emtional stability, being even-tempered and
able to deal with stress.

Knowing the business High-level intelligence
Knowledge of the business enables informed
decisions to be made and promotes
understanding of the implications of those
decisions.

Leaders need to be able to gather and
process considerable information, formulate
strategies, and solve problems. A high ‘g’
(general intelligence) level is important.

Source: Adapted from Kirkpatrick and Locke16

drive,
honesty and integrity,
knowing the business,
wanting to lead,
having self-confidence, and
being intelligent.17

A more complex approach to understanding and measuring leader traits comes from the
competency movement begun by David McClelland.18 The competency approach searches for
the underlying characteristic(s) of an individual related to effective or superior performance.19
Clearly, what constitutes superior performance can be difficult to define, especially for senior
executives, but researchers are attempting to develop appropriate measures.20
Many organizations are seeking leaders able to function globally. Increasingly, senior

managers are agreeing that tomorrow’s leaders will operate in a global context, and that
different capabilities will be required of global leaders.21 In research into effective global
leaders, Gregersen and his colleagues identified the necessary characteristics as being partly
specific to the global context, and partly generic to leaders generally.22 They concluded that
about one-third of a global leader’s success comes from having the knowledge and skills for
specific contexts, such as industry knowledge and understanding the corporate culture. The
remaining characteristics apply to leaders generally, including:

being able to affect others emotionally
being ethical and inquisitive
managing uncertainty, and

Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership : Paradigms and cases. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from trident on 2021-03-03 16:48:56.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
4.
S
A
G
E
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

developing ‘savvy’.

Being inquisitive, adventuresome, curious and open-minded were considered particularly
important in successful global leaders.
However, even if currently-known traits and competencies were accepted as those

necessary for leadership, especially for the single leader-based Classical, Transactional and
Visionary paradigms, it is still not clear how much of each trait is needed in particular
leadership situations. It is also hard to accept that possessing special traits propels so many
people into leadership roles in organizations where leadership is widely distributed.
Further, merely possessing certain traits is probably not sufficient to distinguish leaders

from non-leaders. Leaders also need to display evidence of their traits by behaving
‘appropriately’, as discussed below.

Leader behaviour

Focusing on leader behaviours broadens the concept of leadership beyond birth or personality.
Leadership becomes increasingly democratic, being seen as a more general capability that
many people could potentially achieve. If leaders can be identified by their actions, then more
people could be trained to act like leaders.
Researchers, disappointed in the results of the search for leader traits, began to look at the

behaviours leaders display. Their observations resulted in two broad categories of leader
behaviours: task-related behaviours (concerned with the job to be done), and relationship
behaviours (people-oriented behaviours, such as being supportive and providing feedback).
Studying relationship behaviours was an important development in leadership theory,

because until this time, most of the focus in organizations had been on making tasks as efficient
as possible, with individual workers being considered rather irrelevant. For instance, Taylor’s
scientific management and engineering model had looked at ways of making work more
efficient through his famous time-and-motion studies.23 Although Taylor’s approach started to
focus a little more on workers and followers, as well as the context in which people were
operating, the emphasis was primarily on improving processes and systems. It has long been
known that a focus on people enhances productivity.24 Henry Ford was one of the earliest
industrialists to recognize this, when he stemmed the tide of worker attrition by introducing the
then generous $5 per day minimum wage, profit sharing, and reducing the working day from
nine to eight hours.25
In more recent research, a leader’s focus on relationships has been found to be effective in

the workplace.26 Good relationships result in more satisfied workers.27 Increasingly, social
science research indicated that leaders should also consider human relations among the
members of workgroups, and the image of an effective leader began to change from that of an
autoaat to someone who was more demoaatic.
Identifying appropriate leader behaviours led to the production of management guidelines.

Yukl, for example, provides guidelines for a range of managerial practices significant to

Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership : Paradigms and cases. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from trident on 2021-03-03 16:48:56.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
4.
S
A
G
E
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

effective leadership.28 These practices include familiar management actions with an emphasis
on getting the job done, such as planning, organizing, problem solving, monitoring and setting
objectives.
Other guidelines cover behaviours often associated with managing relationships, such as

motivating, inspiring, consulting, delegating, supporting, developing and mentoring staff,
rewarding, managing conflict, networking and team building. Behavioural guidelines like these
can be of great assistance to Transactional leaders seeking to enhance their interpersonal and
influence skills. See Box 4.2 for some guidelines on influencing.
Yukl proposes that modern leader behaviours should encompass a third category in addition

to task and relationship behaviours, namely behaviours related to change.29 Change-oriented
behaviour includes activities such as improving decisions, innovating, adapting strategy to suit
the environment and making major transformations.
Clearly, the appropriate blend of task, relationship and change-oriented behaviours will

depend on environmental factors, such as how stable or dynamic the organization’s
marketplace, industry and operating environment are. In stable environments, change can be
incremental, with most emphasis on managing the task and relationships. In times of turbulence,
more radical change-oriented behaviour is often needed, accompanied by a shift to more
Visionary leadership.30

BOX 4.2

Guidelines for influencing

The following tactics for influencing others are based on Yukl’s recommendations:31

Rational persuasion: use logical arguments and factual evidence to persuade the
target person to your position.
Inspiration: make a request or proposal that excites the target person by appealing
to that person’s values, ideals or aspirations, or by increasing the target’s self-
confidence.
Consultation: seek the target person’s participation, for example, in planning a
strategy, activity or change, or be willing to modify your proposal to address the
other person’s suggestions and concerns.
Ingratiation: use praise, flattery, friendly or helpful behaviour to put the target
person in a good mood or think favourably about you before asking for some-thing.
For example, compliment them on past achievements, or be sympathetic about
problems your request may cause.
Personal appeals: appeal to the target’s feelings of loyalty and friendship toward
you when asking for something, for example, by appealing to friendship, explaining
why the request is important to you, beginning the requests with ‘I need a favour…’
before stating what it is.

Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership : Paradigms and cases. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from trident on 2021-03-03 16:48:56.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
4.
S
A
G
E
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

Exchange: offer an exchange of favours, indicate your willingness to reciprocate
later, or promise a share of benefits if the target person helps you accomplish the
task.
Coalition tactics: seek others’ aid to persuade the target person to do some-thing, or
use the support of others as a reason for the target to agree. For example, mention
credible people who support the proposal; bring someone along to help influence the
target; provide evidence or an endorsement; or solicit the help of someone with
higher authority.
Legitimating tactics: try to establish the legitimacy of a request by claiming the
authority or right to make it, verifying that it is consistent with organizational
policies, rules, practices or traditions, or refer to some precedent.
Pressure: use demands, threats, frequent checking, or persistent reminders to
influence the target person to do what you want them to do.

One of the strengths of behaviour-based approaches is that leaders can develop their skills
by identifying effective behaviours, for instance:

Classical leaders can acquire monitoring and controlling behaviour;
Transactional leaders can learn to influence others;
Visionary leaders can adopt techniques for honing and communicating visions; and
Organic leadership can enhance team and communication skills.

Where leader behaviours can be learned, the base of leadership can be broadened as more
people acquire the desired behaviours.
While the behavioural approach has provided valuable guidelines for enhancing some

leader behaviours, it has been criticized for a variety of reasons. Some authors regard the
fundamental division into relationship and task behaviours as too broad and unspecific.
Further, the categories are not mutually exclusive.32 What is the difference between the two
categories, especially when a task-related action like monitoring also includes communication,
feedback and elements of supportive behaviour? Similarly, an informal chat can be about job-
related issues as well as making the employee feel good. Change-oriented behaviour may
involve both task and relationship elements in implementing a vision.
Finally, in behavioural theories, the person being managed is usually assigned a passive role

in the leadership process, although some writers also provide guidelines for followers.33

Evaluating individual approaches
Clearly, leadership approaches that focus on an individual’s leadership characteristics,
whether traits or behaviours, reflect the view that the leader is central to understanding
leadership. Sometimes leaders are born to their role, but often they are appointed or achieve

Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership : Paradigms and cases. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from trident on 2021-03-03 16:48:56.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
4.
S
A
G
E
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

leadership in some other way.
Understanding the traits and behaviours that distinguish better from worse leaders would

enhance the quality of leadership appointments. It would also allow appropriate leadership
development. Unfortunately, the traits and behaviours that differentiate between effective and
less effective leaders mostly elude researchers. This is no doubt partly due to the difficulties of
identifying effective leadership, and possibly because researchers have focused on narrow
populations rather than taking broad examples.
Probably the biggest shortcoming of all the theories to date is that they focus on the

individual leader and do not take very much account of the follower or the context in which
leadership takes place. An exception is Yukl’s inclusion of change-oriented behaviours. The
next section presents approaches that investigate the follower’s role as well.

DYADIC AND GROUP LEVEL: INTERACTING WITH OTHERS

The notion of a leader without followers is a contradiction in terms. Leadership implies some
relationship between leader and followers. This relationship can occur between a leader and a
single follower (known as a dyad), or between leaders and multiple followers (groups or
teams). This section discusses some theories relating to a leader’s relationship with
individuals and groups.

Leader-member exchange theory

The Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) approach is based on the observation that followers
form relationships of varying intensity and quality with their leader,34 and that leaders do not
treat all followers equally, but establish close relationships with subordinates regarded as part
of the in-group.
Members of the in-group experience a rich exchange, enjoying relationships with their

leader that are characterized by trust, loyalty and a sense of common fate. In-group members
tend to receive better assignments, more freedom and greater opportunities to work with the
leader, and come to function as the leader’s assistants or advisers. Members of the out-group
do not have such close relationships with the leader, are likely to be assigned less desirable
jobs, have few opportunities to interact with the leader, and are often excluded from important
decisions or activities.
Many factors influence the leader-member exchange relationship, including similarity in

values between leader and followers, demographic characteristics and follower competence.35
National cultural factors may also impact in-group and out-group membership. From
Hofstede’s work showing that cultures differ in how individualistic or collective they are, it is
evident that individualist cultures such as the US and Australia value individual performance.36
In these countries, leaders are expected to select their own in-groups based on the members’

Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership : Paradigms and cases. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from trident on 2021-03-03 16:48:56.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
4.
S
A
G
E
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

competence and contribution to the organization. Appointing family and friends would be
regarded as exhibiting favouritism or nepotism.
On the other hand, leaders in many Asian countries would be reluctant to allow strangers

into the in-group. In Japan and certain other parts of Asia, leaders generally prefer to surround
themselves with family members because family is considered a comfortable and loyal
choice.37 Outsiders are hired to help the organization, but access to the in-group is based on
community factors in collectivist societies. In Hong Kong and Malaysia, what others might
regard as nepotism and showing favouritism would seem very normal, because loyalty to one’s
village, clan or family is of primary concern.38 In these countries, managers prefer to employ
people whom they know and/or who are referred to them by people they know.
Irrespective of how in- and out-groups are formed, relationships between leaders and

individual workers have traditionally been at the core of many organizations, although the
nature of the leader-follower relationship may be changing as more global enterprises organize
around teams, particularly virtual teams. The LMX model has been extensively researched, but
many questions remain unanswered, such as how in- and out-groups form and whether people
can move from one group to another. LMX theory also does not prescribe which patterns of
exchange enhance the leader’s effectiveness. Further, the long-term relationships between
supervisor-subordinates upon which the LMX theory has been based are becoming less
prevalent in an increasingly mobile workforce.39
Since the LMX theory focuses on leadership emerging from the relationships between

people in an organization, the theory could apply to all four leadership paradigms. Given the
emphasis on the leader’s relationship with individual followers who form the in- and out-
groups, the theory is particularly applicable to Classical, Transactional and Visionary
leadership. The LMX theory seems less applicable to Organic leadership, where more fluid
in- and out-groups shift as the leadership or project changes, and the membership of groups
continually changes.

Socio-cognitive approach

According to the socio-cognitive view, leadership is in the eye of the beholder. Leader actions
and behaviours, and not hierarchical positions, underlie whether people attribute leadership to
them. Follower perceptions are thus central to acknowledging leadership under this approach,
rather than the characteristics or actions of the leader per se.
Socio-cognitive researchers explain perceptions of leadership using one of two different

processes: recognition or inference.40 People form leadership perceptions by observing
someone’s daily interactions with others. Observers may well conclude that leaders are
intelligent, decisive individuals who can communicate effectively. This recognition stems
from the observer’s past experience with leaders, and whether the current person matches the
leader criteria the observer has developed from those past experiences. Recognition-based
perception is assumed to be largely automatic, that is, it can happen without being consciously
thought about.41 Clearly, what individual observers recognize as leader behaviour will depend

Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership : Paradigms and cases. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from trident on 2021-03-03 16:48:56.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
4.
S
A
G
E
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

on their past experiences and cultural background. For example, those who regard leadership
as a shared group experience may well not recognize Classical or Transformational acts as
‘leadership’, classifying them as non-leadership behaviour instead.
Inference is the second process through which leadership can be identified. Attributing

leadership to someone is inferred from the outcomes of significant events, such as enhanced
performance or someone’s promotion. Although inferred leadership is frequently a controlled
mental process, it can be influenced by the stereotypes or prototypes individuals hold about
leadership.42 For example, improvements in profits or share prices might be attributed to the
collective efforts of followers under Organic leadership, or to the leader’s personal efforts in
the Classical paradigm.
Recognition and inferential perception processes probably dominate at different levels of an

organization.43 At lower levels, where direct relationships between leader and followers play
an important role, leadership perceptions will tend to be more automatic and recognition-
based. Rewards and sanctions can be used directly and immediately to influence followers,
and it is relatively easy to note some link between leader behaviour and performance. For
example, people can recognize that in rewarding high performance, a leader directly influences
how followers behave.
Most employees do not experience a senior executive’s influence directly, and so draw

conclusions about top leadership from indirect evidence. Observers outside the top team may
have trouble accurately assessing what the leader does and establishing links between those
actions and organizational performance. Exceptions arise where senior management’s actions
directly affect the organization, such as introducing new technology or downsizing. However,
in general, top-level executives operate through indirect influence on the organization. These
people may experience difficulty in being perceived as leaders because they do not fit the
prototypical ideas of leadership that individuals hold.44
If they do not directly experience the effects of a leader’s actions, people tend to rely on

cultural stereotypes or beliefs to form perceptions of leadership.45 For example, the comforting
myth that leaders should be able to control everything that affects an organization’s
performance can form the basis for leader perceptions. Using this belief, when an organization
is performing well, the leader is accorded the credit for the success, but when organizations
are performing poorly, responsibility for the failure is also attributed to the leader.
Socio-cognitive approaches are well linked to extensive research into cognition. However,

focusing on the follower’s mental processes to determine leadership represents a major
departure from conventional approaches that emphasize the characteristics and role of the
leader. The socio-cognitive approach also contributes a valuable distinction between
perceptions of leadership at different organizational levels.
Since perceiving leadership depends on the stereotypes or beliefs that a person holds about

the concept, the socio-cognitive approach applies to each leadership paradigm.

Evaluating dyadic approaches
A major contribution of the dyadic and group approaches is that they recognize that leadership
emerges from interactions between leaders and followers. The LMX theory acknowledges that

Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership : Paradigms and cases. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from trident on 2021-03-03 16:48:56.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
4.
S
A
G
E
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

these interactions are not all equal, and that this impacts leadership relationships. The socio-
cognitive approach attributes the major role in leadership to followers and their perceptions of
leadership.
However, the theories considered so far tend to be acontextual, that is, they do not focus on

the context in which leadership is occurring. The socio-cognitive approach does recognize that
leadership can differ at various levels within an organization, depending on how close the
attributing follower is to the leader concerned. However, the focus of the dyadic approaches
tends to be at the micro-level, independent of the broader situation. The next section considers
theories that involve the context very strongly.

CONTINGENCY THEORIES: SITUATIONS MATTER

Most of the approaches covered so far have dealt only peripherally, if at all, with the context in
which leader-follower relationships take place. This section introduces views that focus more
on the situation. These approaches, which trace their origins back to the two-dimensional
behaviour theories, are often called ‘contingency’ theories because they prescribe that leader
behaviour should depend, or be contingent, on the situation.

Situational leadership

Hersey and Blanchard made a major contribution to leadership theory by extending the early
two-dimensional behavioural models based on task and relationship behaviours to include a
third dimension.46 This dimension, akin to individual or group psychological maturity or
follower development level, attempts to take into account the human environment in which a
manager operates. This model evolved into a highly popular approach known as Situational
Leadership (SL), of which there are now several versions in use in addition to those
developed by the original proponents.47 This book adopts Blanchard’s terminology in
describing SL.
SL models propose that effective managers provide individual followers with differing

amounts of direction and support on performing tasks and achieving goals. depending on each
person’s developmental level.48 The combination of a person’s commitment and competence
constitutes that individual’s developmental level on a given task or goal.49 Competence refers
to the person’s knowledge and skills relating to the task, as well as to their transferable skills.
Commitment refers to an individual’s motivation and confidence for undertaking that task or
goal.
Effective SL derives from an appropriate combination of Supporting (‘relationship

behaviours’, such as listening, recognizing, communicating and encouraging) and Directing
(‘task-related behaviours’ such as providing instructions and monitoring how closely they are
followed). Combining Supporting and Directing behaviours forms four key SL behaviour

Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership : Paradigms and cases. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from trident on 2021-03-03 16:48:56.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
4.
S
A
G
E
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

categories or styles:

SI Directing (high directing, low supporting);
S2 Coaching (high directing, high supporting);
S3 Supporting (low directing, high supporting); and
S4 Delegating (low directing, low supporting).

The idea is that managers should begin with Directing, move to Coaching, then on to
Supporting and finally to Delegating as the follower develops on a given task.
Corresponding to the SI to S4 styles are team member developmental levels of D1 to D4

respectively.50 Blanchard describes the four developmental levels as:51

D1 – enthusiastic beginner, low on competence and high on commitment;
D2 – disillusioned learner, with increasing competence and low commitment;
D3 – capable but cautious contributor, with moderate-to-high competence and variable
commitment; and
D4 – self-reliant achiever, high on both competence and commitment.

SL prescribes that leaders should match the style they use to an individual follower’s
developmental level, striving to develop staff as they move through Directing, Coaching,
Supporting to Delegating (see Figure 4.1). The model can also be applied to developing and
managing teams, with the SL style related to the team’s developmental level.
An intuitively appealing leadership model for practitioners, particularly Transactional

leaders, SL emphasizes the importance of adjusting leader behaviour to follower needs. Upon
closer evaluation, many theoretical and consistency flaws have been identified in SL theory
and the accompanying questionnaires. For example, how to define and assess development
levels is unclear, and how to match leader behaviours is not defined consistently from one
situation to the next.52

The model has received relatively little academic and research attention.53 Some see this as
rather alarming, given SL’s extensive use as a training tool.54 Since several SL models exist
that vary in definitions, terminology and even fundamental concepts, it is not surprising that the
little research conducted into SL has failed to produce clear-cut outcomes.55

Figure 4.1

Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership : Paradigms and cases. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from trident on 2021-03-03 16:48:56.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
4.
S
A
G
E
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

Reconceptualized relationship between leader styles and follower development levels in Situational
Leadership56
Source: ©H. Bergsteiner

Despite its theoretical shortcomings, SL has impacted practice probably more than any other
management tool, with over three million managers trained in it.57 Research among
practitioners suggests that SL is popular for a variety of reasons. Its concepts are intuitively
appealing, the model is easy to understand and apply, SL fits comfortably with the role of the
Transactional leader/manager, and has a wide range of uses on-the-job.58 How much managers
actually apply the model is questioned in Box 4.3.

BOX 4.3

Avoiding being directive

Managers are advised to use one of four SL styles, depending on the developmental level
of a given follower on a particular task or goal. Research among Australian managers has
found that managers prefer to use highly supportive SL styles, particularly S3
(Supporting), and avoid being directive.59

These preferences persist even after training.60 In interviews with practising managers
trained in SL who claimed to apply the model at work, some managers expressed shame
because they did not follow the model and apply all four styles. Respondents often
acknowledged their preferences for supportive styles and that they struggle to use the
low-supporting S1 (Directing) and S4 (Delegating) styles. The researchers cite a
respondent who, after using SL for two years, said: ‘I’ prefer the coaching and supporting
styles. But since the course, I’ve been more of a delegator.’ Another manager reported:

Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership : Paradigms and cases. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from trident on 2021-03-03 16:48:56.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
4.
S
A
G
E
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

‘My comfort zone is coaching and my non-comfort zone is directing, but I’m having to use
all four because it’s required now.’
Such was the general dislike for directing that one person described it as ‘tiresome and

boring’, another as ‘I’ hate having to stand there and … get forceful’. Respondents
described strategies that they had developed to avoid being directive, such as trying to
employ people who do not need directing or delegating any directing tasks to others. As
one manager said: ‘A’ lot of the work – the S1 stuff, I actually delegate that. When we get
new employees in who are … D 1s, raw … I really don’t have the time to go up there and
S1 them. So I get guys like my equipment manager (to undertake the directing role) …’61
This bias towards relationship behaviour has been attributed partly to a strong

‘mateship’ culture in Australia, where telling another person what to do is considered
unfriendly. Certainly, to increase worker satisfaction and leadership ‘success’, research
indicates that Australian managers need to relate more individually to their followers
compared with managers elsewhere.62 However, research generally suggests that
establishing and maintaining harmonious relationships with supporters is advantageous
for leaders.63 Researchers have found that subordinates generally need large amounts of
supportive behaviour, regardless of their developmental level, and some argue that if one
element of SL behaviour were to be perceived as ‘best’, that element would involve high
supportive behaviour.64
Thus, the extent to which SL is actually applied, in that all four styles are used as

prescribed, remains doubtful, at least among Australian managers. This may well be
different among managers from other cultures.

Fiedler’s contingency model

Fiedler’s model proposes that leadership effectiveness is a function of the match between a
leader’s style and the leadership situation.65 If the style matches the situation, the leader will
be effective; if not, the leader will not be effective.
Fiedler distinguishes between task-motivated leaders and relationship-motivated leaders.

He proposes that task-motivated leaders draw their self-esteem from accomplishing tasks,
whereas relationship-motivated leaders draw their self-esteem from interpersonal relations.
To a relationship-oriented person, relationships appear more important than accomplishing a
task. The opposite is true for those who are task-motivated.
Fiedler describes a leadership situation in terms of three factors:

the relationship between leader and followers;
how structured the task is; and
the leader’s position power.

Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership : Paradigms and cases. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from trident on 2021-03-03 16:48:56.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
4.
S
A
G
E
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

Figure 4.2

Fielder’s contingency model showing effective and ineffective domains
© H. Bergsteiner

Combining these three elements describes the amount of control the leader has over a
particular situation (see Figure 4.2). A good leader-follower(s) relationship, a highly
structured task and a leader with high position power form one end of the control continuum.
This provides the leader with high control over the situation. Conditions like these appear to
favour the Classical and Transactional paradigms.
In the middle of the continuum lie situations where the task is unstructured or the leader and

followers do not get along very well. Here, the leader cannot exert full control over the
situation, which makes the leadership environment difficult for the task-oriented leader. At the
lower end of the situational control continuum, the task is highly unstructured, leader-follower
relations are poor and the leader has very little power. This creates challenging conditions for
Classical and Transactional leadership.
Central to Fiedler’s contingency model is the match between the leader’s style and the

situation. As the situation changes, so does the leader’s effectiveness, because the leader finds
himself or herself in and out of match. Overall, the model predicts that task-motivated leaders
will be more effective than relationship-oriented leaders where there is either high or low
control over the situation. Relationship-motivated leaders will be effective under conditions of
moderate situational control.
Looking at each of these situations in turn:

Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership : Paradigms and cases. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from trident on 2021-03-03 16:48:56.

C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
4.
S
A
G
E
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

1. High control situations: According to Fiedler’s model, task-motivated leaders perform
well in high control situations. Here, their self-esteem is not threatened, so they can
provide resources to help the group perform. In the same situation, relationship-motivated
leaders are likely to be bored, as leaders, and may feel that there is nothing for them to
do. If the group is cohesive and the task is clear, the leader’s role becomes taking care of
details and removing obstacles. This tends not to appeal to relationship-oriented leaders,
who prefer to work with people.

2. Moderate-control situations: Moderate control can arise where either group
cohesiveness or task structure is lacking. Here, the situation becomes ambiguous, and
completing the task is uncertain. The relationship-motivated leader’s interpersonal skills
and participative style suit this situation, because this leader can rally the group to work
together to define and clarify the unclear task. Under these conditions, the relationship-
motivated leader feels comfortable, and helps the group be productive by using the group
as a resource.
Moderate-control conditions can threaten the task-motivated leader, who may become
concerned that lack of group support or ambiguity in the task could jeopardize completing
the job. Striving to get the job done, a task-oriented leader will probably attempt to hurry
things along, and may become autocratic in order to gain a sense of accomplishment.
Typically, task-motivated leaders do not use their groups well, preferring to rely on their
own skills and experience, and so the task-motivated leader’s group performs poorly
under moderate control conditions.

3. Low-control situations: Low-control situations can become chaotic and reach a crisis
point at which they offer no group cohesion, no task structure and no strong position
power. Neither task nor relationship leaders function particularly well under these
conditions. The task-motivated leader’s focus on completing the task tends to lead to an
attempt at taking over, controlling the group, and making autocratic decisions without
worrying about the group members. Although the resulting performance is not high, task-
motivated leaders can achieve some out-comes in low-control situations.
The same low-control situation tends to reduce the relationship-motivated leader’s
effectiveness when the group’s lack of cohesion prevents it from progressing on the task,
and the group’s disarray interferes with efforts at reconciling the members. Relationship-
motivated leaders often withdraw from these situations ceasing to prove any leadership.

A major assumption behind Fiedler’s model is that the leader’s style is long lasting and
stable. Another is that although everyone can exhibit behaviours typically associated with the
other style, people’s fundamental motivational basis does not change quickly. However, in
practice, the situations that leaders face are often dynamic, making a leader move rapidly from
in-match to out-of-match. Fiedler does not advocate changing the leader’s style to match the
situation. Rather, the leader should learn how to diagnose and modify situational control. This
should allow an optimal match between leadership style and the changing situation to be
maintained.
Several extensive research reviews support Fiedler’s hypotheses, including in applied

settings.66 Overall, in-match leaders perform better than out-of-match leaders. Despite this
Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership : Paradigms and cases. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from trident on 2021-03-03 16:48:56.

C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
4.
S
A
G
E
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

being one of the more reliable and predictive leadership models, strong criticisms have been
voiced about it.67 Criticisms relate to the distinction between task- and relationship-motivated
leaders and whether the model can predict successful leadership.
Being able to control a situation is probably a vain hope in today’s turbulent environments,

making the Fiedler theory less relevant in dynamic organizations than under stable conditions.
Therefore, Fiedler’s theory would be more applicable to Classical and Transactional
leadership than to Organic and Visionary paradigms. In chaotic or low control situations,
where Visionary and Organic leadership prevail, neither task- nor relationship-oriented
leadership is likely to be very effective. As already discussed, the New Science advice is for
leadership to let go of control in chaotic times.

House’s path-goal theory

House and his associates propose a third contingency approach in which the key role of a
leader is to clear the way for others to accomplish goals.68 The leader reaches personal goals
by allowing followers to fulfil their needs. At the heart of the model is the idea of an implicit
or explicit exchange between leaders and followers. Leaders and followers establish a
transactional relationship that revolves around the exchange of the leader’s guidance or
support for the followers’ productivity and satisfaction.
Path-goal theory is based on the Porter-Lawler expectancy model of motivation.69 This

model assumes that people make rational choices about their behaviour, based on individuals’
perceptions of the extent to which their own effort and performance produce outcomes that they
value. Under expectancy theory, the key to motivation is to remove obstacles that may weaken
follower perceptions of the link-ages between effort and performance. Similarly, under path-
goal theory, the role of the leader is to help strengthen linkages between effort, performance
and outcome, and to remove obstacles to followers’ performance, thereby allowing them to do
their jobs.
Again, the situation plays a role. The nature of the task, coupled with characteristics of the

followers, determines which leadership behaviour contributes to sub-ordinate satisfaction. On
a new, unstructured and unclear task, followers are likely to waste their efforts through
inexperience, and so may feel unmotivated and frustrated. In this situation, the path-goal leader
needs to be task-focused in providing instructions and training, thereby removing major
obstacles to employee satisfaction and motivation.
After mastering a routine task, followers sometimes start to lose interest. This situation

requires the leader to show empathy, consideration and understanding behaviours designed to
remove the blocks to satisfaction in these cases. Which behaviours the leader uses to motivate
employees will depend on the needs of each follower, requiring the leader to consider each
individual. Some followers may prefer guidance and clear instructions, while others may seek
challenges and autonomy to solve their own problems. A follower who likes challenges and
values autonomy will not need the leader to be directive and structuring, even on an
unstructured task. Here, being directive may be detrimental by reducing the follower’s

Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership : Paradigms and cases. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from trident on 2021-03-03 16:48:56.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
4.
S
A
G
E
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

satisfaction.
Parallels with SL can be seen here, in terms of matching leader behaviours to the needs of

the follower. Like SL, the path-goal approach foresees that not all leader behaviours will be
successful with all employees. However, path-goal theory differs from SL in that it derives its
rationale for when a leader should be directive and supportive explicitly from motivation
theory, whereas the basis for SL assumptions is unclear.
Does path-goal theory work? In a review of contingency theories, Schriescheim and Kerr

concluded that the path-goal theory appears internally consistent, but needs testing in
practice.70 Since then, mixed empirical support has emerged for the theory. For example, while
letting followers who like to be challenged solve problems themselves makes intuitive sense,
researchers have found that exhibiting relationship behaviours leads to higher employee
satisfaction regardless of the kind of task.71 In other tests of the theory, leaders successfully
used structuring behaviour in structured situations.72
On the one hand, the path-goal theory is transactionally based and therefore could apply

well to Transactional leadership. Interestingly, the role of the leader in path-goal theory is that
of an obstacle remover, a role similar to that ascribed to modern team leaders. Removing
obstacles is also an essential empowering activity of a Visionary leader to enable followers to
achieve a vision (see the Novartis and Rodenstock case studies). In self-managing Organic
environments, followers may not require leaders to remove obstacles because the followers
themselves take on this role, as at Gore or BMW.

Evaluating contingency theories
The contingency theories reviewed here focus on the context beyond the individual leader and
his or her transactions with followers. They represented a major advance in the 1960s and
1970s beyond theories limited to leader traits and behaviours. All the theories have their
critics, and some have been far better conceptualized, researched and supported than others.
For example, SL, while less well conceptualized and researched than the others, has been
widely adopted in practice, prescribing how managers should vary their leadership style to
suit the developmental level of each follower (or team). By contrast, Fiedler’s contingency
model has been relatively widely researched, but criticized on conceptual grounds. House’s
path-goal theory, which proposes that a leader’s role is to remove obstacles for others to
accomplish their tasks, appears theoretically consistent, but needs more testing in practice.

The three theories – SL, Fieldler’s contingency model and House’s path-goal theory – tend to
adopt a leader-centric focus despite some consideration for followers and the situation.
Essentially, these contingency theories fit within the Transactional paradigm, although path-
goal theory with its focus on goals and motivation could also apply to Visionary leadership.

CONCLUSION

Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership : Paradigms and cases. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from trident on 2021-03-03 16:48:56.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
4.
S
A
G
E
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

This chapter has covered a range of theories and models applying to the microlevels of
organizational leadership – those theories that focus primarily on the characteristics of a
particular leader or on interactions between leaders and individual or group followers. Certain
people may be destined to lead by virtue of being born into royal or industrial dynasties, but
many business leaders need to acquire appropriate leader characteristics. There is debate over
what those characteristics should be.
Some theories predict that leaders will differ from others by virtue of possessing special

traits. Modern research suggests that these traits could include displaying drive, desire to lead,
integrity, self-confidence, knowledge of the business and high-level intelligence. In looking at
behaviour that distinguishes leaders from others, most theorists have focused on task and
relationship behaviours, although Yukl specifies other behaviours such as influencing,
planning, inspiring and dealing with change.73
While many theories take the leader as the unit of study, clearly leadership requires

followers and a comprehensive understanding of leadership would encompass the interactions
between leaders and followers. Accordingly, various leadership theories and models apply to
the dyadic and group levels within an organization. These approaches include the LMX theory,
which examines the quality of the relationship between leader and individual followers. A
quite different approach is evident under the socio-cognitive approach, which essentially
argues that leadership stems from follower perceptions rather than residing inevitably in leader
traits or behaviours.

Table 4.2

Linking micro-level theories to the leadership paradigms

Contingency theories posit that the context in which leadership takes place is essential.
Situational leadership is based on the assumption that leaders will develop their followers,
and provides a four-quadrant tool for assisting managers in this process. Depending on each
follower’s developmental level on a given task, the leader is advised to use a different
leadership style. Fiedler’s contingency theory proposes that a leader’s effectiveness depends
on the match between the leader’s style and the given situation. Fiedler predicts that task-
motivated leaders will be more effective than relationship-oriented leaders when the situation
allows high or low control by the leader. Under conditions of moderate control of the situation,
relationship-oriented leaders are expected to be more effective (essentially because they can

Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership : Paradigms and cases. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from trident on 2021-03-03 16:48:56.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
4.
S
A
G
E
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

use their interpersonal skills in involving their group). House’s path-goal theory emphasizes
that a leader’s role is to clear the way for followers to accomplish tasks and to strengthen
linkages between perceived effort, performance and outcome.
Throughout the discussion in this chapter, the micro-level theories have been linked to the

leadership paradigms. Table 4.2 summarizes how these theories seem to relate to the
paradigms. The Great Men, Traits, Behaviour, LMX, Socio-cognitive and Fielder’s
contingency model approaches seem most appropriate to Classical leadership. For
Transactional leadership, all those theories applying to Classical leadership would also apply,
plus the Situational Leadership Model and House’s Path-goal theory. Theories particularly
relevant to the Visionary paradigm are the Great Men, Traits, Behaviour, LMX, Socio-
cognitive and Path-goal approaches. Most of the micro-level leadership theories and models
are not considered relevant to the Organic paradigm, except for the Socio-cognitive approach.
The theories discussed in this chapter tend to be rationality-based, implying that managing

others does not necessarily involve emotion. Another group of theories, described in the next
chapter, focuses on the emotional connection between leaders and followers.

NOTES

For full details of these notes, please see the References section at the end of this book.
1 Bass, 1985; Yukl, 1998
2 e.g. Tracey and Hinkin, 1998
3 Lord and Maher, 1991; Waldman and Yammarino, 1999
4 Yammarino, 1997
5 Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991
6 Weber, 1978
7 Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1973:162
8 Bradford and Cohen, 1984
9 Farnham, 1993
10 Duerst-Lahti and Kelly, 1995:19
11 Duerst-Lahti and Kelly, 1995; Sinclair, 1998
12 Sinclair, 1998
13 e.g. DuBrin, 1998; Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991
14 Stogdill, 1948
15 Yukl, 1994
16 Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991
17 ibid.
18 McClelland, 1973
19 Briscoe and Hall, 1998
20 Pierce, 1994
21 Gregersen, Morrison and Black, 1998
22 ibid.
23 Taylor, 1911
24 e.g. Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939
25 King and Fine, 2000
26 Cairns, Hollenback, Preziosi and Snow, 1998; Goodson, McGee and Cashman, 1989; Vecchio, 1987; Wexley, Alexander,

Greenwalt and Couch, 1980; Yukl, 1981
27 Fleischman and Harris, 1962
28 Yukl, 1998

Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership : Paradigms and cases. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from trident on 2021-03-03 16:48:56.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
4.
S
A
G
E
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

29 ibid.
30 Bass, 1990b
31 Yukl, 1998
32 Kerr, Schriesheim, Murphy and Stogdill, 1974
33 Chalef, 1995; Yukl, 1994
34 Dansereau, Graen and Haga, 1975; Graen and Cashman, 1975
35 Ashkanasy and Weierter, 1996
36 Hofstede, 1984
37 Ichikawa, 1996
38 Nahavandi, 1997
39 Rousseau, 1997
40 Lord and Maher, 1991
41 ibid.
42 ibid.
43 ibid.
44 ibid.
45 ibid.
46 Hersey and Blanchard, 1969
47 Hersey and Blanchard, 1969, 1982, 1996
48 Blanchard and Nelson, 1997
49 Blanchard, Zigarmi and Nelson, 1993
50 Blanchard, Zigarmi and Zigarmi, 1985
51 Blanchard and Nelson, 1997; Blanchard, Zigarmi and Nelson, 1993
52 Graeff, 1983
53 Blank, Weitzel and Green, 1990; Graeff, 1983, 1997; Vecchio 1987
54 Goodson, McGee and Cashman, 1989
55 e.g. Cairns, Hallenback, Preziosi and Snow, 1998
56 The SL model shown here differs substantially from the original Hersey and Blanchard version. Bell curves, as used in the

original model, usually refer to data sets and the use of such a curve is therefore incompatible with the 2 × 2 matrix
structure of the SL model, which implies no continuous data set. Furthermore, in modelling theory, an almost universally
accepted convention is that temporal sequences go from left to right (Britt, 1997), which the original model also violated.

57 Blanchard and Nelson, 1997
58 Avery and Ryan, 2002
59 Avery, 2001
60 Avery and Ryan, 2002
61 ibid.
62 Parry and Sarros, 1996
63 Duchon, Green and Tabor, 1986; Steiner, 1988; Wexley, Alexander, Greenwalt and Couch, 1980; Yukl, 1981
64 Goodson, McGee and Cashman, 1989
65 Fiedler, 1997
66 e.g. Ayman, Chemers and Fiedler, 1995; Peters, Hartke and Pohlmann, 1985; Strube and Garcia, 1981
67 Nahavandi, 1997
68 House, 1971; House and Dessler, 1974; House and Mitchell, 1974
69 Porter and Lawler, 1968; Vroom, 1964
70 Schriescheim and Kerr, 1977
71 e.g. Johns, 1978
72 e.g. Bass, Valenzi, Farrow and Solomon, 1975
73 Yukl, 1998

Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership : Paradigms and cases. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from trident on 2021-03-03 16:48:56.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
4.
S
A
G
E
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.