Download The Contingency Model - Criticism and Suggestions by Mitchell, Biglan, Oncken & Fiedler

The Contingency Model: Criticism and Suggestions
Author(s): Terence R. Mitchell, Anthony Biglan, Gerald R. Oncken and Fred E. Fiedler
Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Sep., 1970), pp. 253-267
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/254963 .
Accessed: 14/06/2014 21:22
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy
of Management Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.34 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:22:50 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The ContingencyModel:
Criticismand Suggestions
TERENCE R. MITCHELL,
ANTHONY BIGLAN,
GERALD R. ONCKEN,
FRED E. FIEDLER"
University of Washington
The authors present a critical analysis
of Fiedler's Contingency Model of LeadThese criticisms
ership Effectiveness.
are discussed and various solutions are
suggested.
It became apparent many years ago" that leadership effectiveness
theories must include information about the situation in which leaders
worked. One such theory, the so-called "Contingency Model," was presented by Fiedler.3 The basic premise of the theory is that the performance
of interacting groups is contingent upon the interaction of leadership styles
and the favorability of the situation for the leader.
The most important variable underlying much of this research has
been the leader's "esteem for his least preferred co-worker" (LPC) score.
To obtain this score, the individual rates his LPC on 17 bipolar adjective
scales (e.g., pleasant . . . unpleasant), and the sum of these ratings is
treated as his LPC score. In general, this score has been viewed as a
1Preparation of this paper was supported by Office of Naval Research Contract NR
177-473, N00014-67-A-0103-0013, Advanced Research Projects Agency (Fred E. Fiedler,
Principal Investigator).
*The authors are the senior members of the Organizational Research Group, Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Dr. Mitchell is Assistant Professor of Psychology and Business. Mr. Biglan is an
acting lecturer in the Department of Psychology, as is Mr. Oncken. Dr. Fiedler is Professor
of Psychology and of Management and Organization. He is also Director of the Group.
2R. M. Stogdill, "Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the
Literature,"Journal of Psychology, 25 (1948), pp. 35-71; C. A. Gibb, "Leadership," Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol II, ed., G. Lindzey (Cambridge, Massachusetts: AddisonWesley, 1954).
3Fred E. Fiedler, "A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness," Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 1, ed., L. Berkowitz (New York: Academic Press,
1964), pp. 149-190, F. E. Fiedler, "Validation and Extension of the Contingency Model of
Leadership Effectiveness: A Review of Empirical Findings," Psychologcal Bulletin (in press).
253
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.34 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:22:50 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Academy of Management Journal
254
September
measure of leadership style with the high LPC leader seen as being interoriented, and the low LPC leader being seen as
personal-relations
task-oriented.4
To describe the situation, Fiedler has utilized three major dimensions
cf the group-task situation: (1) leader-member relations, (2) task structure,
and (3) the leader's position power. By dichotomizing each of these dimensions, eight types of group-task situations have been identified.
Situation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Leader-Member Relations
Good
Good
Good
Good
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Task Structure
Structured
Structured
Unstructured
Unstructured
Structured
Structured
Unstructured
Unstructured
Position Power
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
These situations are postulated to differ with respect to the degree
to which the leader can influence and control his members. More specifically, the leader is seen as having maximum influence in situation 1 and
relatively little influence in situation 8. A considerable amount of evidence
indicates that a leader with a low LPC score tends to perform well in
situations that are very easy or very difficult (situations 1, 2, and 8). In
contrast, leaders with a high LPC score perform well in situations that
are of medium difficulty (situations 4, 5, and 6). It seems, then, that the
LPC score appears to differentiate between effective and ineffective leaders
in a variety of situations.
The publication of the model has led to extensive research, both by
Fiedler and his associates, as well as other social scientists, in an attempt
to examine the validity of the model. We will begin this paper by summarizing the validation studies that have been carried out since the model was
introduced. Then we will discuss in turn methodological
problems with
the model, the meaning of the LPC score, and an analysis of the favorability
dimension.
SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Previous Results
Groups from 15 studies, antedating 1963, were classified according
to their situational favorableness and the correlation between leader LPC,
and performance was then computed for each set of groups. The correlations between the leader's LPC score and the group's effectiveness measgenerated a bowures, when plotted against situational favorableness,
leaders
low
the
LPC
that
distribution
performed more
indicating
shaped
favorable
and
unfavorable
in
than
LPC
leaders
very
very
high
effectively
situations; high LPC leaders performed more effectively in situations
intermediate in favorableness (see Figure 1).
'Fred E. Fiedler, A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness (New York: McGraw-Hill,1967).
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.34 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:22:50 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Contingency
1970
Model: Criticism And Suggestions
255
FIGURE I
Correlations Between
High LPC:
Permissive
Considerate
J
t-
1.00
-
0.80
-
0.60
-
0.40
-
Leaders' LPC Scores and Group Effectiveness
Plotted for Each Cell
x
x
0
0
CD
.
O
_
0.20
</-
I
-o 4x
X-
-0. 20
-
-0.40
-
-0.60
-
\
/
\
x
4
x
X
Eta
Low LPC:
Control Ing
Managing
-0.80
-
-1 .00
'.,r .
Favorable
for leader
Leader-member
Task
relations
Leader
position
power
= 0.43
x
t
I
good
str.
structure
x
\
strong
II
good
lit
good
str.
urstr.
weak
strong
-_
I
...i
I
1
.
IV
V
VI
VIt
VIII
good
mod.
mod.
mod.
mod.
poor
poor
poor
poor
str.
str.
unstr.
unstr.
strong
weak
strong
weak
unstr.
weak
Unfavorable
for leader
It should be pointed out that one octant was not represented (No. 6)
in these studies and that the points on the figure represent studies from
a variety of organizations. The locations of these points in a given octant
vary widely as do the sample sizes.
Validation Evidence
Approximately 25 studies were conducted since 1964 which attempted
to test the model or various aspects of it. A recent review of the validation evidence indicates that the situational favorableness moderates the
correlation between leadership style and group performance.5 An analysis
of studies representing a fairly exact test of the Contingency Model, based
on the three component dimensions of the situational favorableness classification, generally support the model. Specifically, field studies testing
the model indicate, on the whole, a very close relationship between the
predicted curve and the obtained curve. Moreover, a significantly large
proportion of correlations were in the predicted direction. Laboratory
experiments did not support the model in Octant II, and the support for
5Fred E. Fiedler, "Validation and Extension."
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.34 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:22:50 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Academy of Management Journal
256
September
certain other octants was weak. On the other hand, here, too, the binomial
test of correlations supporting the predictions of the model as against those
not supporting the model was significant. Altogether, 35 of 44 correlations
were in the predicted direction. Nevertheless, the variation from predicted
correlations in Octant II suggests caution in assuming either that the model
is readily generalizable to laboratory experiments, or that certain conditions existing in field situations can be adequately reproduced in laboratory studies. The data from these field studies and laboratory studies are
presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1
Summary of Field and Laboratory Studies Testing the Contingency Model
Octants
Field Studies
I
-0.64
-0.51
Hunt
Hill
Fiedler, et al.
O'Brien, et al.
Laboratory Experiments
-0.72
Belgian Navy
-0.77
Shima
Mitchell
II
-0.10
Ifl
-0.80
0.60
-0.29
IV
-0.24
-0.21
0.00
-0.46
0.47
0.37
0.50
-0.26
0.24
0.17
0.34
-0.16
-0.54
VI
V
0.21
0.08
0.13
0.71*
0.43
0.38
0.51
Vl/
0.30
-0.30
0.62
-0.51
0.67*
0.14
-0.45
0.16
0.03
0.07
0.14
Fiedler Executive
West Point
0.13
0.35
0.28
0.10
-0.43
-0.32
(Shzypek)
0.10
0.22
0.17 -0.22
0.38
Median, all studies -0.64
0.23
0.21 -0.24
-0.21
-0.29
Median, field studies -0.57
Median, laboratory
0.13
0.16
0.38
-0.72
0.24 -0.16
experiments
Medians in original
0.47
0.42
-0.52
-0.58
-0.33
studies
Number of correlations in the expected direction ........
Number of correlations opposite to expected direction ....
.........
.........
p by binominal test
VIIl
0.26
-0.27
-0.37
0.60
0.08
-0.33
0.26
0.30
-0.35
-0.33
0.08
-0.33
0.05
-0.43
....
34**
11
0.01
*p <05
'*Exclusive of Octant VI, for which no prediction had been made.
The remainder of the paper will present criticisms of the model and
its component parts. There will also be an attempt to provide solutions
to those problems which are discussed.
METHODOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF THE CONTINGENCY MODEL
Methodological considerations pertaining to the Contingency Model
will be discussed in two sections. First, the measurement of various parameters and variables relevant to the model will be discussed. Then, we
will critically examine the general strategy which Fiedler and others have
employed to test predictions of the Contingency Model.
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.34 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:22:50 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1970
The Contingency Model: Criticism And Suggestions
257
Measure of Parameters
As prescribed in the description of the original model, the situational
favorability dimension is composed of three components: (1) task structure,
(2) leader position power, and (3) leader-member relations. Each component is dichotomized, and the components are combined in the prescribed configural fashion to define the eight octants of the situational
favorability dimension.
Task structure is operationally
dimensions:
1. Goal clarity,
2. Decision verifiability,
3. Solution specificity, and
4. Goal path multiplicity.
defined
by four of Shaw's6
task
A task is rated on each of these four dimensions on an eight-point scale,
and a mean scale score of 5.0 is used as a cutting point for dichotomizing
task structure. These specifications provide a well-defined standard method
of dichotomizing task structure.
The model provides an objective measure of leader position power.
This measure consists of an 18-item checklist designed to determine the
reward, coercive, and legitimate
degree to which the leader possesses
power, as well as having special knowledge or skills not available to the
group members. However, no cutting point is specified for dichotomizing
position power, and the split was originally made at the median. This
procedure is open to the obvious criticism that the median is likely to
shift from study to study, so that a situation of high position power in
one study could possibly be considered low position power in another
study. A more important problem with the position power dimension,
however, is that the scale proposed by Fiedler is omitted in some studies
testing the Contingency Model. Thus, in the Belgian Navy Study,7 position
power was manipulated by using petty officers (high position power) versus
recruits (low position power) as leaders. The manipulation was further
strengthened by giving the petty officers the final decision on points of
disagreement, while requiring that group decisions be unanimous in the
low position power condition. This manipulation of position power has
good face validity, but it would have been desirable to follow the guidelines of the proposed checklist. Other studies8 have, however, applied the
scale.
6M. E. Shaw, "Scaling Group Tasks: A Method for Dimensional Analysis" (Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida, 1963) (mimeographed).
TFred E. Fiedler, "The Effect of Leadership and Cultural Heterogeneity on Group
Performance: A Test of the Contingency Model," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
2 (1966), pp. 237-264.
8J. G. Hunt, "Fiedler's Leadership Contingency Model: An empirical test in three
organizations," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 2 (1967), p. 290-308.
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.34 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:22:50 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
258
Academy of Management Journal
September
Leader-member relations are typically measured by the leader's score
on the group atmosphere scale, on which the leader rates the group
situation on items such as friendly-unfriendly, tense-relaxed,
etc. This
scale is supposed to measure the degree to which the leader feels accepted
by the group. There are two problems with the technique of assessing
leader-member relations. First, once again no cutting score is specified
for dichotomizing the scale, and the split is typically made at the median.
There is very little reason to doubt that the median group atmosphere
score would vary widely from setting to setting. It would be desirable to
have normative data on group atmosphere in a variety of settings to provide cutting scores not dependent on the particular situation. A report
by Posthuma'. now provides such information.
A second problem with the group atmosphere scale is that it is usually
administered after the group session. This is not a fatal flaw, but the
investigator should be aware that the group atmosphere score may at
least in part be determined by the leader's perception of the group's performance on the task. One possible statistical method for dealing with
this problem would be to partial group productivity scores out of the
group atmosphere score and then make the split.
Leadership style is measured by the leader's responses to the LPC.10
The highest test-retest reliability coefficient reported by Fiedler for the
LPC scale is 0.70, indicating that under the best circumstances, the LPC
scale has about 50 percent reliable variance. In one study, with an 8week intertest period characterized by military training for the respondents,
the test-retest correlation dropped as low as 0.31.1l Assuming that
these two coefficients are upper and lower limits, there is some question
as to whether the LPC scale is a sufficiently reliable measure of what
is presumed to be a relatively enduring trait, and more research on the
measure is required.
STRATEGY FOR TESTS OF THE MODEL
Antecedent
Probability
model is based on
The antecedent evidence for the contingency
research in a wide variety of settings with a number of different types
of actors. Furthermore, the prior evidence is based on a number of different measures of group productivity. Based on the wide sampling of behaviors, actors, and settings, we can conclude that the model has fairly
good external validity.
9A. Posthuma, "Normative Data on the Least-Preferred Co-Worker and Group Atmosphere Questionnaires" (Seattle, Washington: Oreganizational Research, Technical Report
No. 70-6).
"'Fred E. Fiedler, Leadership.
"Ibid, p. 48.
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.34 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:22:50 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1970
The Contingency
Model: Criticism And Suggestions
259
The predicted correlations between leader LPC and group productivity
for each octant are defined as the median correlation within each octant
across all antecedent studies. Examination of the correlations used to
derive the model12 reveals that at least in some of the octants, the correlations vary over a wide range. Thus, in Octant III, the correlations range
from -0.72 to one isolated case of +0.84. This broad range of correlations leaves us with very little confidence in the predicted correlation
of -0.33 for Octant ilI and suggests that the classification of group situations needs improvement. The range of correlations in the other octants
is less extreme.
Evidential Probability
The predictions of the Contingency Model are typically tested in field
studies and field experiments, although laboratory tests of the model have
been conducted. In the field studies,13 the usual procedure has been to study
intact groups engaging in their routine activities. Task structure and
leader position power were decided either by ratings of judges or by
the judgment of the experimenter: group productivity was assessed where
possible by objective scores. Leader LPC was obtained where possible
either
before the study, and Group Atmosphere scores were assessed
concurrently or as in the Fiedler, et al.14 study at the end of the field experiment. The groups were then classified into the appropriate octants of
situational favorability, and rank-order correlations are computed between
leader LPC and group performance within each octant. Because of the
partitioning, there were usually no more than three or four octants represented in any study.
The field experiments differed from the field studies in that the subjects were assigned tasks especially designed for the study, and in some
cases were assigned to groups assembled for purposes of this study.l5
Several methodological problems with these tests of the Contingency
Model need to be pointed out. First, only two studies16 tested the predictions of all eight octants of the model, and the results of one 17 were not
totally in support of the model as predicted.
12lbid, p. 146.
"3Hunt,"A Test of Leadership"; Fiedler, "Validation and Extension"; and Fred E. Fiedler.
G. E. O'Brien, and D. R. Ilgen, "The Effect of Leadership Style upon the Performance and
Adjustment of Volunteer Teams Operating in a Stressful Foreign Environment," Human
Relations (in press).
"lbid.
"Fred E. Fiedler, "The Effect of Leadership."
"Ibid; and G. J. Skrzypek, "The Relationship of Leadership Style to Task Structure
Position Power, and Leader-Member Relations" (West Point, New York: U. S. Military
Academy, Technical Report No. 34, 1969).
"1Fred E. Fiedler, "The Effect of Leadership."
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.34 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:22:50 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Academy of Management Journal
260
September
Second, as Graen, Alvares, Orris, & Martella18have pointed out, the
usual tests of statistical significance were frequently not applied to the
correlations used to test the model. Since the number of cases per octant
in any one study tends to be very small, the more lenient criterion of being
in the hypothesized direction was used. Based on a null hypothesis of a
zero correlation, this results in an alpha level of 0.50 for tests of the
hypothesis. Graen et al. argue further that a consequence of this strategy
is that it is necessary to generate almost the entire sampling distribution
of correlations in an octant before the null hypothesis can be rejected.
The evidential impact of any one study is therefore relatively small. Nevertheless, the validation studies shown in Table 1 have provided a large
number of correlation coefficients in each octant, and while few of the
individual correlations differ significantly from zero, the total pattern of
correlations are significantly in support of the predictions of the model.19
A final methodological difficulty with the Contingency Model has to
do with the partitioning of the situational favorability dimension into
homogeneous subsets of groups.20 Fiedler states,
The basic hypothesis
of the Contingency
Model . . . is not
tied to the definition of the favorableness dimension in terms
of group climate,
position power, and task structure.
. . . The
main question is always how to order situations in terms of their
favorableness.21
This implies a research strategy involving partitioning the groups on a
number of variables until meaningful results (i.e., supporting the model)
are obtained. Just this type of approach was used originally in the Belgian
Navy Study,22 although it was not used when the material was analyzed
again23 nor was it used in other validation studies shown in Table 1. It
is important to guard against this type of research strategy.
This type of research strategy has two consequences. First, with
continued partitioning, the number of groups within any cell is reduced
to a level where meaningful statistical tests cannot be performed. Second,
this approach will inevitably lead to a rejection of the null hypothesis
over a series of studies. The rejection of the null hypothesis of no systematic
relationship would in this case be due not to any true relationship, but
rather to the systematic treatment of the data.24
"SG.Graen, D. Alvares, J. Orris, and J. Martella, "The Contingency Model of leadership
effectiveness: Antecedent and Evidential Results," Psychological Bulletin (in press).
g9Fiedler,"Validation and Extension," p. 16.
20Graen,et al., "The Contingency Model."
2'Fred E. Fiedler, "Leadership."
2Fred E. Fiedler, "The Effect of Leadership."
'3Fred E. Fiedler, "Validation and Extension."
2Graen, et al., "The Contingency Model."
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.34 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:22:50 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1970
The Contingency Model: Criticism And Suggestions
261
Some Suggestions
In the original statement of the Contingency Model, an explicit set
of predictions is made concerning the correlation between leader LPC
and group performance within each octant of situational favorability. These
octants are well defined by a specified configuration of dichotomized
scores on leader-member relations, task structure, and leader position
power. An empirical test of the Contingency Model requires that groups
be classified into octants in the prescribed way, and that the correlations
between leader LPC and group productivity be computed. Statistical tests
of these correlations should be applied to test their difference from zero
and from the predicted correlation in each octant. If a different partitioning of the situational favorability dimension is used, then a different model
is implied and must run the gamut of evidential test.
If the predictions of the Contingency Model need not be tied to the
prescribed definition of situational favorability, then a theory of situational
favorability must be developed stating the rules of combination of various
parameters of the situation in determining the favorability of the situation
for the leader in a variety of settings. Then the more general hypothesis
of a curvilinear relationship between situational favorability and the LPCproductivity correlation could be tested in a number of settings. We will
discuss such an approach later in this paper.
MEANING OF THE LPC SCORE
The LPC score has been related to group performance in a large
number of studies. The direction of the relationship depends, however,
upon the type of situation in which the leader finds himself. The problem
has been the interpretation of this score:
Assumed Similarity and LPC scores have been the subject of
intensive research since 1950. However, these scores have been
extremely resistant to meaningful interpretations which related
them to personality traits and to consistent behavior patterns. For
many years we were in the peculiar position of having a score
which seemed to correlate with nothing but group performance.25
The evidence, taken as a whole, suggests that the low LPC person
is more concerned with the task, and the high LPC person is more concerned with establishing good interpersonal relations. These interpretations rest upon a wide variety of data. Most important, perhaps, are studies
showing that high LPC leaders become more active in the interpersonal
relations area, while low LPC leaders become more active in the task
area as the leadership situation increases in difficulty; i.e., as the leader
has less and less control and influence over the situation.'2
2"FredE. Fiedler, "Leadership," p. 46.
26lbid;D. W. Bishop, "Relations between Task and Interpersonal Success and Group
Member Adjustment" (Urbana, Illinois: Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, University
of Illinois, 1964) (mimeographed); and Fred E. Fiedler, 'The Effect of Leadership."
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.34 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:22:50 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
262
Academy
of Management Journal
September
In addition, studies by Mitchell'2 have demonstrated a consistent but
moderate relationship between LPC and Scott's28 differentiation measure.
High LPC persons tend to categorize more finely when asked to classify
a set of different groups in as many ways as possible. Also, Bieri29 has
pointed out that the high LPC person differentiates more among traits
of the individual he describes, a finding substantiated in a number of
studies which show that the variance of item scores of high LPC persons
is higher than that of low LPC persons.
It was also found in a series of lab and questionnaire studies that
high LPC people are able to discriminate more finely among the behaviors
used by others than were low LPC people. These studies are described
in more detail elsewhere.30 A similar result was found for the ability to
differentiate among the demands of the task setting,31 again supporting
the idea that the LPC scale is a measure of cognitive complexity.
It may well be that the greater cognitive complexity of the high LPC
person in his perception of co-workers as well as groups, reflects
his concern for interpersonal relations in order to achieve need satisfaction. This hypothesis is currently being tested.
On the other hand, the evidence is far from clear. A number of studies
have not supported the interpretation of the LPC score as relating to
task-versus
Thus, Steiner32 found low LPC
relationship-orientation.
more
on
three social distance measures,
be
to
expansive
socially
subjects
and less extrapunitive than high LPC persons. Nealey (unpublished) found
low LPC subjects to state that when they were faced with a hypothetical
work situation, they would prefer good interpersonal relations, while high
LPC subjects stated that they wished to have an efficient group. Mitchell's33
study showed that high LPC subjects were more cognizant of position
power and task structure than were low LPC subjects in judging leadership
situations, while the latter relied to a greater extent on the interpersonal
relationship between leader and group members.
2T. R. Mitchell, "Cognitive Complexity and Leadership Style," Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology (in press).
29W.A. Scott, "Cognitive Complexity and Cognitive Flexibility," Sociometry, 25 (1962),
p. 405-414; and Idem, "Conceptualizing and Measuring Structural Properties of Cognition,"
Motivation and Social Interaction: Cognitive Determinants, in 0. J. Harvey (ed.) (New York:
Ronald, 1963), p. 266-288.
as a Personality Variable in Cognitive and Prefer29J. Bieri, "Complexity-Simplicity
ential Behavor," Functons of Varied Experience, D. W. Fiske and S. R. Maddi (eds.), (Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey, 1961), p. 355-379.
30T. R. Mitchell, "Leader Complexity, Leadership Style, and Group Performance"
(Ph.D. diss., Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois, 1969).
31U. G. Foa, T. R. Mitchell, and F. E. Fiedler, "Differentiation Matching," Behavioral
Science (in press).
321. D. Steiner, "Interpersonal Orientation and Assumed Similarity between Opposites"
(Urbana, Illinois: Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, 1959) (mimeographed).
ST. R. Mitchell, "Leader Complexity, Leadership Style."
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.34 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:22:50 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1970
The Contingency Model: Criticism And Suggestions
A reanalysis of research on LPC suggests that these
findings can be integrated into the framework of a goal
preparation).
263
contradictory
hierarchy (in
THE SITUATIONAL FAVORABLENESS DIMENSION
Validity
Recall that the situational favorableness dimension is composed of
three variables; i.e., leader-member relations, task structure, and position
power, and that the leader-member relations are deemed to be the most
important. Three different measures have been used by Fiedler to assess
these relations:
1. The leader's rating of the group atmosphere (the sum of 10
bi-polar scales describing the situation),
2. The members' ratings of group atmosphere, and
3. The degree to which the leader is sociometricaily chosen by
group members.
The first of these has been used most frequently.
Ratings of group atmosphere may well reflect aspects of group climate
other than the relations between leader and members. For example, low
group atmosphere ratings could result from tension between members
of the group and not reflect poor relations between the leader and members. The leader's rating of group atmosphere depends upon the assumption that the leader can accurately judge the climate of the group, but it
is his position which seems most likely to create the possibility of inaccurate
perception. In fact, studies by Mitchell, Fiedler ,and O'Brien34 indicate low
intercorrelations between these measures. These findings suggest that
sociometric measures and group atmosphere ratings by different participants do not compose a single dimension. The sociometric measure appears
to have the best face validity as a measure of the quality of leader-member
relations. Unfortunately, it has been used less frequently than the leader's
rating of group atmosphere.
We need, also, to ask about the construct validity of the favorability
dimension. The question here is, "Is the dimension related to other variables in the theory in the way that the theory suggests?" A first and obvious
as situational
prediction is that perceived favorableness will decrease
favorableness decreases. At least two studies support this prediction.
Mitchell35 found that leaders did perceive favorability to be lower in
3"T.R. Mitchell, "The Construct Validity of Three Dimensions of Leadership Research,"
Journal of Social Psychology, 80 (1970), p. 89-94; Fred E. Fiedler, "Leadership": G. E.
O'Brien, "Methods of Analyzing Group Tasks" (Urbana, Illinois: Group Effective Research
Laboratory, Technical Report No. 46 [67-2] 1967).
35T.R. Mitchell, "Leader Complexity, Leadership Style."
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.34 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:22:50 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
264
Academy
of Management
Journal
September
unfavorable situations. Chemers and Summers3'1 asked subjects to rate
the favorability of hypothetical group situations for which member-leader
and member-member relations were described as being either positive
or negative. They found that both of these factors were associated with
significant differences in the ratings of favorability of the situation. Fiedler;7
also found that leaders were more anxious in the less favorable situations
than in the more favorable ones.
A second prediction which follows from the definition of situation
favorability is that actual influence of the leader will differ according to
favorability. Actual influence could be measured by the degree of actual
compliance to specific influence attempts of the leader. As yet no such
direct tests of the interpretation of this dimension have been attempted.
Finally, we need to consider the possibility that alternate interpretations of this dimension can be made. Foa, Mitchell, and Fiedler38 suggest
as one alternative that the underlying dimension is situation complexity
V11 , and VIII comprise situations which
rather than favorability. Octants 1, 1,
the
than
other situations (in that everything is
may be seen as simpler
between LPC and measures
correlations
The
positive
"good" or "bad").
that
an
of cognitive complexity suggest
important component of the variance in LPC is cognitive complexity. Thus, the positive correlations between
LPC and performance found in Octants IV and V may then be due to the
greater ability of the cognitively more complex, high LPC leaders to
deal with more complex situations. Negative correlations in the other
octants are interpreted as resulting from the lower complexity of these
situations.
To summarize, a number of problems appear to exist with respect to
the validity of the favorability dimension. The various measures of the
quality of leader-member relations have face validity, but do not converge
to a satisfactory degree. Construct validity for the dimension is not complete, and a plausible alternate explanation of the dimension exists.
Other Criticisms of the Favorability Dimension
A variety of other critcisms of the favorability dimension may be
made. Many of the criticisms which follow have been made elsewhere by
other authors (O'Brien and Fiedler:`). it should be noted before launching
into criticism that the dimension was developed in 1963. At that time,
the dimension represented a more sophisticated and complete treatment
of the situation than could be found elsewhere. A search for a more satisfactory method of defining this dimension has continued.
36M. M. Chemers and D. A. Summers, "Group Atmosphere and the Perception of
Research Laboratory, TechGroup Favorableness" (Urbana. Illinois: Group Effectiveness
nical Report No. 71 [68-16] 1968).
37Fred E. Fiedler, "Leadership."
'3U. G. Foa, T. R. Mitchell, and Fred E. Fiedler, "Differentiation Matching."
"G. E. O'Brien, "Group Structure and the Measurement of Potential Leader Influence,"
Australian Journal of Psychology, 21 (1969), p. 277-289; and Fred E. Fiedler, "Leadership."
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.34 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:22:50 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Contingency Model: Criticism And Suggestions
1970
265
Absence of a Metric of Situation Favorability
The Contingency Model treatment of favorability does not provide
a way of quantifying the favorability of a particular group situation. The
favorability of the group situation can only be obtained through comparison
of the group with other groups. A procedure which provided quantification
of favorability would alleviate some of the statistical obstructions to the
test of the model: the interaction of the measure of favorability and LPC on
performance could be examined.
Problem of Adding Other Dimensions
Other measures of situation favorability have been used. They include
ratings of stress, tenure of leader, cultural heterogeneity, etc. No procedure has been specified to date as to how these measures should be combined
with the usual factors in the favorability dimension. Moreover, the adequacy
of these measures as measures of situation favorability typically was not
established. This leaves the possibility open of generating supporting results
for the Contingency Model by choosing from among the many measures,
which are purported to be of situation favorability, those which produce
the curvilinear relationship between LPC and performance. This is obviously
not tenable from a methodological point of view.
Important Aspects of the Situation are Neglected
The influence of the leader in group situations may be a function of
variables which are not included in the Contingency Model, Wearing and
Bishop40 have shown the influence of member LPC and attitudes. In addition, O'Brien41 cited two such variables. First, in organizations, the authority
relationships above the supervisor may affect his ability to influence group
members. Second, aspects of the task, besides its structuredness, may
affect favorability. For example, Vroom and Mann42 suggest that the cooperation requirements of the task may affect the relative importance of
task- and relationship-oriented behaviors for performance.
Favorableness is Leader-Centered
The leader-member, relations focus on only the relationships between
leaders and members and do not include consideration of the relations
among group members. It is possible that these relationships are important
for the ability of the leader to influence group members.
Situational
40A.Wearing, and D. W. Bishop, "Leader and Member Attitudes toward Co-Workers,
Intergroup Competition, and the Effectiveness and Adjustment of Military Squads" (Urbana,
Illinois: Group Effectiveness Laboratory, Technical Report No. 21, 1967).
41G.E. O'Brien,"GroupStructure."
4'. H. Vroom and F. C. Mann, "Leader Authoritarianism and Employee Attitudes,"
Personnel
Psychology,
13 (1960), pp. 125-240.
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.34 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:22:50 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
266
Academy of Management Journal
September
To summarize, an improved treatment of situation favorability should
provide a quantitative index of favorability, a consistent system for weighing aspects of the situation, and it may need to include other aspects of
the situation known to affect leader influence.
Potential
Influence
O'Brien4: provides an important response to the problems which have
just been discussed. He derived a measure of the potential influence of
the leader which is quantitative and includes consideration of the structure
of the group as a whole. The measure stems from the structural role theory
framework for the treatment of organization structure.44 Structural role
theory treats the structure of the organization in terms of the relationships among three elements: (1) persons, (2) positions, and (3) tasks. Six
relationships are possible among these elements:
1. Person-to-person relations (e.g., liking, communication);
2. Assignment of persons to positions;
3. Power relations among positions;
4. Allocation of tasks to positions;
5. Precedence relations among tasks; and
6. Person-to-task relations (e.g., liking for task, time actually spent
on task).
The relation between two elements may be represented in a digraph by
a directed line from the point representing the first element to the point
representing the second element. Figure 11 presents an example of a
Figure 2
Structural Role Theory Digraph
Informal
Persons
Relationships
h
Assignment
"
Positions
Power
R1
P2
P1
Allocation
Tasks
tt
Precedence
R2
t2
Elements and Relationships of Organizational Structure (after Oeser, and Harary, 1962).*
*hl and h, are persons; pi and p. are positions; and ti and t2 are tasks. Informal
relationships (R,) such as liking and communication connect persons. Positions are connected by power relationships (R1). Tasks are connected by precedence relationships (R2),
which are relationships that define the order in which subtasks must be completed.
3G. E. O'Brien, "Group Structure."
A. Oeser, and F. A. Harary, "A Mathematical Model for Structural Role Theory,
I," Human Relations, 15 (1962), pp. 89-109; Idem, "A Mathematical Model for Structural Role
Theory, !I," Human Relations, 17 (1964), pp. 3-17; and 0. A. Oeser and G. O. O'Brien, "A
Mathematical Model for Structural Role Theory, III,"Human Relations, 20 (1967), pp. 83-97.
440.
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.34 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:22:50 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1970
The Contingency Model: Criticism And Suggestions
267
simple role structure. A path is said to exist between two points if it
is possible to trace from the first point to the second point via directed
lines. Thus, in Figure II, a path exists between h, and P., via Pi. However,
no paths exist between P1 and hl, since the directed lines do not go toward
hi.
O'Brien uses the notion of a path to define an index of potential influence. The leader's potential influence is defined by the "ratio between
the number of paths connecting him to the task system and total number
of paths between persons and tasks." Matrix algebra algorithms are provided for the calculation of the index.
The value of this approach measuring situational favorableness is:
(a) It allows quantification of group situations;
(b) It presumably includes most of the important relationships
making up group structure, and
(c) It treats the entire structure of the group.
O'Brien45 used this index as a measure of situation favorability in a
test of the Contingency Model. He found that the correlations between
LPC and performance were related in a curvilinear fashion to the index
of potential influence. This suggests that the measure is tapping the same
construct as Fiedler's dimension and, as pointed out, may avoid some
of the problems with the dimension as it is presently operationalized.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Contingency Model has become one of the major theories of
leadership effectiveness. Validation studies have provided strong support
for this theory which has led to important new insights into the leadership
process. This critique pointed to various aspects of the model which are
in particular need of further research.
More specifically, we see the need for new interpretations of the LPC
variable and an alternate method for assessing situational favorableness.
We have also pointed out a number of methodological problems with the
model and have attempted to suggest remedies for them.
'5G. E. O'Brien, "Group Structure."
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.34 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:22:50 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions