Construct Space of the Least Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) Scale

Abstract

An attempt was made to determine the meaning of the least preferred co-worker (LPC) score by means of a confirmatory analysis. The LPC score is considered to be a measure of leader-ship style which distinguishes people motivated primarily by task accomplishment from those motivated by successful interpersonal relations. One hundred and sixty-three subjects completed a test battery containing eight measures which were expected to be related to LPC and 10 measures which were not. The results of the analyses indicated that LPC and two of its component subscores occupy a construct space independent of all the other measures. These findings have negative implications for Fiedler's contingency model since they cast doubt upon the validity of LPC, the model's central construct, as a measure of leadership style.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bass, A. R. , Fiedler, F. E. , and Krueger, S. (1964). Personality correlates of the assumed similarity of opposites (ASo) and related scores. Urbana, Illinois: Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, University of Illinois.

Evans, M. G. and Dermer, J. (1974). What does the least preferred coworker scale really measure?: A cognitive interpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 202-206.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fiedler, F. E. (1977). A reply to Schriesheim and Kerr's premature obituary of the contingency model. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 46-50.

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

Kennedy, J. K., Jr. (1982). Middle LPC leaders and the contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 1-14.

Kuehl, C. R. , DiMarco, N. , and Wims, E. W. (1975). Leadership orientation as a function of interpersonal need structure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 143-145.

Mitchell, T. R. (1970). Leader complexity and leadership style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 166-174.

Peters, L. H. , Hartke, D. D. , and Pohlmann, J. T. (1985). Fiedler's contingency model of leadership: An application of the meta-analysis procedures of Schmidt & Hunter. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 274-285.

10.

Rice, R. W. (1978). Construct validity of the least preferr-d co-worker score. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1199-1237.

11.

Rice, R. W. and Seaman, J. F. (1981). Internal analyses of the least preferred co-worker (LPC) score. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 109-120.

12.

Sashkin, M. , Taylor, F. C. , and Tripathi, R. C. (1974). An analysis of situational moderating effects on the relationships between LPC and other psychological measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 731-746.

13.

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.

14.

Schriesheim, C. A. and Kerr, S. (1977). Theories and measures of leadership: A critical appraisal of current and future directions. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 9-45.

15.

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