In Fiedler's theory of leadership, two types of leaders, relationship oriented and task oriented, are identified by their ratings of the least preferred coworker (LPC) that they have known. The rating scale primarily measures the extent to which the coworker is friendly or unfriendly plus some items that measure the degree of task orientation. Data from 20 groups of managers in the United States suggest that Fiedler had his types reversed. The manager whose ideal is relationship oriented gives low ratings on friendliness. Ratings by university students in England, where few have an ideal that is extremely task oriented, suggest that Fiedler may have been gathering datafrom leaders who combine a task and relationship orientation, because these people, using Fiedler's LPC scale, do give lower ratings to their least preferred coworker than relationship-oriented people.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ashour, A. S. (1973a). The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: An evaluation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 339-355.
2.
Ashour, A. S. (1973b). Further discussion of Fiedler's contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 369-376.
3.
Ayman, R. , Chemers, M. M., & Fiedler, F. (1995). The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: Its levels of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 147-167.
4.
Bales, R. F. (1986). SYMLOG and leadership theories. Paper presented at SYMLOG workshop at the Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.
5.
Bales, R. F. , & Cohen, S. P. (1979). SYMLOG: A systemfor the multiple level observation of groups. New 'York: Free Press.
6.
Blake, R. R. , & Mouton, J. S. (1970). The fifth achievement. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 6(4), 413-426.
7.
Edwards, J. E. , Rode, L. G., & Ayman, R. (1989). The construct validity of scales from four leadership questionnaires. Journal of General Psychology, 116(2), 171-181.
8.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
9.
Fiedler, F. E. (1968). Personality and situational determinants of leadership effectiveness. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed., pp. 362-380). New York: Harper & Row.
10.
Fiedler, F. E. (1972). Personality, motivational systems, and behavior of high and low LPC persons. Human Relations, 25(5), 391-412.
11.
Fiedler, F. E. (1973). The contingency model-A reply to Ashour. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 9, 356-368.
12.
Fiedler, F. E. (1995). Cognitive resources and leadership performance. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 44(1), 5-28.
13.
Fiedler, F. E. , & Garcia, J. E. (1987). New approaches to effective leadership: Cognitive resources and organizational performance. New York: John Wiley.
14.
Fishbein, M. , Landy, E., & Hatch, G. (1969). Some determinants of an individual's esteem for his least preferred co-worker: An attitudinal analysis. Human Relations, 22(2), 173-188.
15.
Hare, A. P. , Hare, S. E., & Koenigs, R. J. (1996). Implicit personality theory, social desirability, and reflected appraisal of self: In the context of New Field Theory (SYMLOG). Small Group Research, 27, 504-531.
16.
Levine, J. M. , & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 585-634.
17.
McCrae, R. R. , & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175-215.
18.
Rice, R. W. (1978a). Construct validity of the Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) score. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1199-1237.
19.
Rice, R. W. (1978b). Psychometric properties of the esteem for the least preferred coworker (LPC scale). Academy of Management Review, 3, 106-118.
20.
Rice, R. W. , & Seaman, F. J. (1981). Internal analyses of the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41(1), 109-120.
21.
Schriesheim, C. A. , Cogliser, C. C., Newmark, R. I., & Lowensohn, S. H. (1994). The equalinterval nature of semantic differential scales: An empirical-investigation using Fiedler's Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale and magnitude estimation and case III scaling procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(2), 253-262.
22.
Schriesheim, C. A. , & Klich, N. R. (1991). Fiedler's Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) instrument: An investigation of its true bipolarity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(2), 305-315.
23.
Schriesheim, C. A. , Tepper, B. J., & Tetrault, L. A. (1994). Least Preferred Co-worker score, situational control, and leadership effectiveness: A meta-analysis of contingency model performance predictions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 561-573.
24.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press.
25.
Strube, M. J. , & Garcia, J. E. (1981). A meta-analytic investigation of Fiedler's contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Psychological Bulletin, 90(2), 307-321.
26.
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.
27.
Vecchio, R. P. (1983). Assessing the validity of Fiedler's contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A closer look at Strube and Garcia. Psychological Bulletin, 93(2), 404-408.
