UPI Study › Courses › Principles of Management › Free lessons › Lesson 10.1 Free with a free account
Fit and Control: Fiedler's Contingency Model
Principles of Management · Chapter 10: Classic Theories and Models of LeadershipSection 10.1 · lesson 55 of 11712 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Principles of Management.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Principles of Management
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Adapting to the Follower: Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Model →← Where Power Comes From: Personal and Positional SourcesNext lesson: Adapting to the Follower: Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Model →
In this lesson
If a leader's orientation is fixed, change the match, not the leader.
- Describe the model and its situational variables
- Explain what the LPC measure claims to assess
- Explain the model's prediction and its reasoning
- Apply the model to a described situation
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,574 words). Read along, or search it.
Classic Theories and Models of Leadership
Fit and Control: Fiedler's Contingency Model
Chapter nine described leadership styles. Chapter ten turns to the formal theories that explain when each one works. We start with the first major contingency model, developed by Fred Fiedler. Its starting claim is unusual. A leader's orientation is relatively fixed. We'll see how Fiedler measured that orientation, and why the measure is still argued over. Then come the three situational variables, and the eight situations they produce. We'll walk through the model's prediction, and the reasoning behind it, which isn't what most people expect. We'll weigh the criticisms, and name what survives them. And we'll apply the model, step by step, to a described situation.
The Central Claim
Leadership Orientation Is Relatively Fixed
Fiedler's model rests on a claim that sets it apart from every style-based framework this course has covered so far. Leadership orientation is relatively fixed. Most frameworks treat a leader's style as something she can, and should, adjust to fit the situation. Fiedler disagreed. He argued that a leader's underlying orientation is a stable characteristic. It doesn't shift readily from one situation to the next. The practical consequence follows directly. If orientation can't be changed reliably, effectiveness can't come from asking the leader to change. It has to come from matching the leader to the situation, or from changing the situation itself. That single premise separates Fiedler from the situational and path-goal approaches covered next in this chapter. Both of those assume the leader herself is the adaptable element.
Measuring Orientation
The Least Preferred Coworker (LPC)
Fiedler measured orientation with the least preferred coworker measure, usually shortened to L P C. A leader thinks of the one person she has worked with least well, across her entire career. Then she rates that person on a series of scales. Here's the interpretation, as Fiedler proposed it. A leader who rates that coworker favorably, despite the difficult relationship, is read as relationship-oriented. She can separate her judgment of the person from her judgment of the difficult working relationship. A leader who rates the same person unfavorably is read as task-oriented. For her, the poor working relationship colors her overall judgment of the person more completely. Be careful with this measure, though. Its validity is genuinely contested. Researchers have long debated what the score captures. A stable orientation, a momentary attitude, or something else entirely. That dispute has never been fully resolved.
Situational Variables
3 Variables Set Favorability
Three situational variables determine how favorable a situation is for a leader. The first is leader-member relations, the degree of trust and support between the leader and the group. The second is task structure, how clearly the work itself is defined. A highly structured task has a clear, verifiable correct method, and a clear outcome. An unstructured task has neither. The third is position power, the formal authority the leader holds. That includes her ability to hire, fire, reward, and discipline. Notice what ties the three together. Each one is a source of control over the situation. Good relations, a clear task, and real authority all make it easier for a leader to get things done.
Favorability
8 Situations, 3 Categories
Combine the three variables, each present or absent in some degree, and you get eight distinct situational combinations. Fiedler grouped those eight into three broader categories. Highly favorable situations combine good relations, high structure, and strong position power. Together, those give the leader considerable control. In moderately favorable situations, the variables combine less consistently. The leader has real control, but it's incomplete. And in unfavorable situations, poor relations, low structure, and weak position power combine. That leaves the leader with very little control over the situation at all. So favorability is really a measure of control. The next question is which kind of leader each level of control suits.
Figure 10.1.1
Task at Both Ends, Relationship in the Middle
Figure ten point one point one arranges the eight situations in a strip, numbered one to eight. They run from highly favorable on the left, through moderately favorable, to unfavorable on the right. Each situation is marked with the orientation Fiedler's model predicts will succeed there. The first three situations, the highly favorable ones, call for a task-oriented leader. The middle three, the moderately favorable ones, call for a relationship-oriented leader. And the last two, the unfavorable ones, call for a task-oriented leader again. That's the striking part. The pattern isn't linear. Task-oriented leaders are predicted to succeed at both ends of the favorability range. Relationship-oriented leaders are predicted to succeed specifically in the middle. Most people expect one orientation to win as conditions improve. Fiedler's model says otherwise.
The Reasoning
Why Each Orientation Wins Where It Does
The reasoning differs for each part of that prediction. Start with a highly favorable situation. The leader already has strong relations, a clear task, and real authority. So a task-focused push toward efficient execution meets little resistance, and turns those advantages directly into results. Relationship-building is largely unnecessary there. Good relations already exist. Now a highly unfavorable situation. The leader has so little natural control that only firm, direct, task-focused structure can impose enough order to get anything done. Relationship-building is unlikely to succeed, and it wastes time the situation's urgency doesn't allow. Finally, the moderately favorable middle. The leader has enough control that pure task pressure isn't strictly necessary. But not so much that relationships can be taken for granted. Here, a relationship-oriented leader's attention to trust and support is what turns an ambiguous, mixed situation into a workable one.
Table 10.1.1
3 Situations at Harborline Manufacturing
Table ten point one point one applies the model to three situations at a fictional firm, Harborline Manufacturing. Situation A has good leader-member relations, high task structure, and strong position power. That's highly favorable, so the model recommends a task-oriented leader. Situation B has good relations, but low task structure and weak position power. That's moderately favorable, so the model recommends a relationship-oriented leader. Situation C has poor relations, low task structure, and weak position power. That's unfavorable, and the model recommends a task-oriented leader again. Compare B and C. They differ only in relations, yet the recommendation flips. That's the non-linear pattern from the figure, working on concrete cases.
Practical Implications
Select the Leader, or Engineer the Situation
Two practical implications follow directly from the fixed-orientation premise. The first is to select the leader to fit the situation. Choose a task-oriented leader for a highly favorable, or a highly unfavorable, assignment. Choose a relationship-oriented leader for a moderately favorable one. The second is to engineer the situation to fit the leader already in place. An organization can deliberately change task structure, or position power. It might clarify an ambiguous task, or grant a leader greater formal authority. Either change shifts the situation's favorability toward whatever orientation that leader already brings. Notice what's missing from both options. Neither one asks the leader to change her style.
Assessing the Model
Criticisms, an Extension, and What Survives
Fiedler's model draws three criticisms, and they're worth stating plainly. First, the measure's construct validity is disputed. Nobody agrees on exactly what the L P C score measures. Second, the fixed-orientation assumption is contested. Critics argue leaders can and do adjust their behavior more than the premise allows. If so, the whole logic of matching or engineering, rather than developing the leader, is undercut. Third, empirical support for the full model is mixed. Some studies support the pattern, and others fail to replicate it cleanly. Fiedler later extended the model into cognitive resource theory, which added stress as a further variable. It proposes that a leader's intelligence and experience predict performance differently, depending on how stressful the situation is. So what survives all of this? A genuine insight. Situational favorability matters, and the same leader performs differently across situations. At the time, that was new. It moved the field from asking for the single best leader, to asking which leader and situation combination works. That's the founding move behind contingency thinking in leadership research.
Applying the Model
4 Steps to a Fit Assessment
Applying the model to a described situation takes four steps. First, assess leader-member relations, task structure, and position power, each one individually. Second, classify the combination as highly favorable, moderately favorable, or unfavorable. Third, identify which orientation, task or relationship, the model predicts will succeed in that category. Fourth, compare that prediction with the leader's own known or measured orientation, to assess fit. From there, decide whether selection or situational engineering is the more practical response. Try it on a simple case. Strong trust, a clearly defined task, and strong formal authority. That's highly favorable, and the model predicts a task-oriented leader will succeed. Now flip all three. Weak trust, an ambiguous task, and weak formal authority. That's unfavorable. And, perhaps surprisingly, the prediction is still a task-oriented leader.
Case Vignette
A Strong Performer Moved Into the Wrong Situation
Here's a composite case, constructed for instruction. Devika led a well-established production line at Harborline Manufacturing for several years. She had strong leader-member relations, a highly structured task, and considerable formal authority. Her clearly task-oriented approach produced consistently strong results in that highly favorable situation. Then Harborline promoted her to lead a newly formed cross-functional project team. It had an ambiguous mandate, and she had weak formal authority over members who still reported elsewhere. She had no established working relationship with most of the team. Within months, her performance declined noticeably. Her ability was genuine, and her personal approach was unchanged. What had changed was the situation. Here's the puzzle. The new assignment classifies as unfavorable, and the model predicts that category also favors task-oriented leaders. The likely explanation is severity. The weak position power and unstructured mandate were extreme enough that even the favored approach struggled. That's a useful reminder. The model predicts relative performance within a category, not guaranteed success. Next, Subchapter ten point two turns to the opposite premise, that the leader can and should adapt her style.
About Principles of Management at UPI Study
Principles of Management (Business 101) is a self-paced online course of 117 video lessons in 17 chapters, from the classical schools and the four management functions to leadership, motivation, change, human resources, strategy and ethics. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Principles of Management with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Principles of Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Fit and Control: Fiedler's Contingency Model
What is Fiedler's contingency model of leadership?
What does the least preferred coworker (LPC) scale measure?
Which leaders does Fiedler's model predict will succeed in favorable and unfavorable situations?
What are the main criticisms of Fiedler's contingency theory?
About the Principles of Management course
How many college credits is Principles of Management?
How much does Principles of Management cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Principles of Management take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Principles of Management.
117 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →