| | | | | | LPC CONTINGENCY MODEL |
| | | | | DEFINITION | WHO | WHEN | CHARACTERISTICS | STRENGTHS | CONCEPTUAL WEAKNESSES |
| | | | | The LPC contingency model was created in the mid-1960’s by Fred Fiedler. The model assumes that leadership has no best style and that the effectiveness of a leader is based on the presented situation. There are two determinant factors, leadership styles and situational favourableness/ situational control. | The model is applied by leaders who aim at identifying leadership styles through the scale, least-preferred Co-worker (LPC) scale and the situational favourableness of a particular sitaution | when in need of identifying leadership styles in leaders or employees and establishing the situational favourabless of a situation. | Effective leadership relies not only on the style of leading but on the control over a situation. There need to be a good leader-member relations, task with clear goals and procedures. A good leader must be able to task rewards and punishments. | The theory is well researched and can help leaders who have good personal relations that exist in a poorly structured task environemnt. Also, the theory is flexible compared to a 'one takes all' theory. | The scale is subjective and chracteristics can only exist in contexts. Also,the LPC score is only valid for groups that are closely supervised and not teams. It is also questionable whether the theory is valid in all situations. |
| | | | | The Fiedler’s contingency theory can be used to create organization change based on its leadership style and situational favourableness using the following steps. |
| | | | | | | | FIGURE ONE | | | | Figure Two |
| | | | | Step One | Identifying the leadership style | | Unfriendly | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Friendly | | Leader-Member Relations | Task Structure | Leader's Position Power | Most Effective Leader |
| | | | | | Here a leader or individual involved identifies a person that has been least enjoyable to work with either in the present or in the past. The experience is rated in figure one. A high score means that the concerned individual is naturally relationship-oriented while a lower score means that the individual is naturally task-oriented. | | Unpleasant | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Pleasant | | Good | | Strong | Low LPC |
| | | | | Step Two | Identifying the situation | | Rejecting | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Accepting | | Good | Structured | Weak | Low LPC |
| | | | | | Here three main questions are addressed | | Tense | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Relaxed | | Good | Unstructured | Strong | Low LPC |
| | | | | | 1. Is the relationship between the leader and the members good or poor? | | Cold | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Warm | | Good | Unstructured | Weak | High LPC |
| | | | | | 2. Is the current task structured or unstructured and do one have little experiences in solving similar problems? | | Boring | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Interesting | | Poor | Structured | Strong | High LPC |
| | | | | | 3. Do one have a strong or weak power over teams or groups? | | Backbiting | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Loyal | | Poor | Structured | Weak | High LPC |
| | | | | Step 3 | Determining the most effective leadership styles | | Uncooperative | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Cooperative | | Poor | Unstructured | Strong | High LPC |
| | | | | | This step identifies the type of leader that is most effective in different categories such as leader-member relations, task structure and leader’s position power. | | Hostile | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Supportive | | Poor | Unstructured | Weak | Low LPC |
| | | | | | | | Guarded | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Open |
| | | | | | | | Insincere | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Sincere |
| | | | | | | | Unkind | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Kind |
| | | | | | | | Inconsiderate | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Considerate |
| | | | | | | | Untrustworthy | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Trustworthy |
| | | | | | | | Gloomy | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Cheerful |
| | | | | | | | Quarrelsome | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Harmonious |
snhembrey
lpc_spreadsheet.xlsx
