Contingency Theory of Leadership: Fiedler, Leader-Member Relations, Task, and Power
Updated: 2 days ago
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 25, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership proposes that leadership effectiveness depends on a match between a leader’s motivational orientation and the degree of control offered by the situation. Fred E. Fiedler’s original model was one of the earliest major attempts to move leadership research away from the search for a universally effective leader type and toward an interaction between leader and context. In the model, leader orientation is indexed by the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) score, while situational control is assessed through leader–member relations, task structure, and position power (Fiedler, 1964; Fiedler, 1978).
The historical importance of that idea is larger than the contemporary empirical status of every specific prediction in the model. Meta-analyses in the 1980s found meaningful support, but they also showed that support varied by data set and situational octant. Direct tests, methodological critiques, and psychometric work raised questions about the meaning of LPC and the measurement of situational control (Strube & Garcia, 1981; Peters et al., 1985; Vecchio, 1977). The most defensible modern reading is therefore two-layered: the broad contingency principle—that leadership effects depend on context—remains central to leadership science, while Fiedler’s exact LPC-by-situational-control pattern should be treated as a historically influential model with mixed and debated evidence rather than as a universal algorithm.
Fiedler’s Contingency Theory: The Short Answer
The contingency theory of leadership asks a matching question: given a leader’s relatively stable motivational orientation, what kind of situation gives that leader the best chance of producing effective group performance? It is a leadership theory, not merely a list of leadership styles. It proposes a specific interaction between a leader variable and three situational variables.
The model has two sides. First, the leader is classified primarily through the LPC score. Low-LPC leaders were interpreted within the theory as more task-motivated; high-LPC leaders as more relationship-motivated. Second, the situation is ordered by the leader’s degree of control or favorableness, determined by the quality of leader–member relations, the structure of the task, and the leader’s formal position power. Effectiveness is predicted from the fit between these two sides rather than from either side alone.
This makes Fiedler’s model different from the everyday idea that a good leader simply changes style whenever circumstances change. Fiedler treated the underlying orientation indexed by LPC as relatively stable and therefore emphasized matching leaders to situations or changing features of the situation. For a broader map of these distinctions, see Leadership Theories: Lewin, Burns and Bass, Fiedler, Greenleaf, and Leader-Member Exchange and Leadership Styles: Lewin, Goleman, Transformational, Servant, and Situational Leadership.
Where the Theory Came From
Fiedler developed the contingency model through research on small groups and leadership effectiveness in the 1950s and 1960s, culminating in his 1964 chapter “A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness” and his 1967 book A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. The 1964 formulation defined leadership in task-relevant terms and sought to explain why the same leader characteristic could relate differently to group performance under different conditions (Fiedler, 1964).
That move was theoretically important. Trait approaches had searched for characteristics associated with leaders; behavioral approaches focused on what leaders did. Fiedler made the leader–situation interaction itself the explanatory center. Later leadership research expanded contextual thinking in many directions, and contemporary reviews still emphasize that leadership occurs within task, team, organizational, cultural, temporal, and environmental contexts (Liden & Antonakis, 2009; Oc, 2018; Carton, 2022).
Fiedler later reframed “situational favorableness” in terms of situational control: how much the situation allows the leader to influence group processes and outcomes. His 1978 review explicitly acknowledged unresolved problems, including the need for a cleaner definition and better metric of situational control and continued research on what LPC actually measures (Fiedler, 1978).
The Core Logic: Leadership Effectiveness Is an Interaction
The model can be expressed conceptually as: leadership effectiveness = function of leader orientation × situational control. The multiplication sign matters. A contingency theory does not say that task orientation is generally superior, that relationship orientation is generally superior, or that favorable situations automatically create effective leadership. It predicts that the relationship between leader orientation and performance changes as the situation changes.
This is also why “effectiveness” must be kept separate from popularity, charisma, authority, or status. Fiedler’s dependent variable was principally group performance or effectiveness, not whether followers liked the leader, whether the leader looked charismatic, or whether the leader emerged informally. Modern leadership science uses many outcomes, and reviews warn that different leadership constructs can predict different criteria (Dinh et al., 2014; Carton, 2022).
Step 1: The Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) Score
The Least Preferred Coworker scale asks a leader to think of the person with whom they have had the greatest difficulty working and rate that person on bipolar adjective scales. The logic is unusual: the scale is not asking how the leader behaves with the current team. It uses the leader’s evaluation of a difficult coworker as an indirect indicator of motivational orientation.
In the classic interpretation, a low LPC score indicates a task-motivated orientation: the least preferred coworker is evaluated relatively negatively, and task accomplishment is theorized to dominate under relevant conditions. A high LPC score indicates a relationship-motivated orientation: even the least preferred coworker is evaluated more favorably, which Fiedler interpreted as reflecting stronger relational motives. Middle-LPC scores have always been harder to place cleanly within the two-pole story.
LPC is not a simple personality trait
Calling LPC a personality test is too broad. The model treated it as a relatively stable leader characteristic, but decades of research did not establish a simple equivalence between LPC and a familiar personality trait such as extraversion, agreeableness, empathy, or authoritarianism. Robert Rice’s reviews examined the construct validity, factor structure, reliability, scoring, stability, and alternative interpretations of LPC, illustrating how contested the measure’s meaning became (Rice, 1978a; Rice, 1978b).
Later work added more specific measurement concerns. Kennedy and colleagues found the LPC score occupied a construct space largely independent of measures expected to relate to it and argued that this cast doubt on its validity as a straightforward measure of leadership style (Kennedy et al., 1987). Schriesheim and Klich found that several adjective pairs departed from true bipolarity, while Stewart and Latham concluded that both LPC and the situational-control measure were more complex than the theory’s simple labels implied (Schriesheim & Klich, 1991; Stewart & Latham, 1986).
LPC is not the same as observed leadership behavior
A second distinction is essential: motivational orientation is not identical to behavior. A leader categorized as low LPC is not scientifically guaranteed to behave in a directive manner in every situation, and a high-LPC leader is not guaranteed to display supportive behavior at all times. Fiedler’s model concerns a leader characteristic interacting with situational control. Contemporary leadership research generally benefits from measuring actual behaviors separately rather than assuming that a style label tells us exactly what a leader did.
That distinction also prevents a common online simplification: taking an informal LPC quiz and treating the result as a diagnosis of one’s permanent leadership personality. The LPC has a historical research role, but its psychometric controversies make casual self-testing a weak basis for personnel decisions.
Step 2: Situational Favorableness or Situational Control
The second half of the model describes the leadership situation. Fiedler’s original language emphasized situational favorableness; later work increasingly used situational control. The idea is the degree to which the leader can predict, direct, and influence group activity. Three components define that degree: leader–member relations, task structure, and position power (Fiedler, 1978).
1. Leader–Member Relations
Leader–member relations refer to the quality of the leader’s relationship with the group: acceptance, trust, confidence, support, and the general interpersonal climate surrounding the leader. Good relations increase control because the leader’s influence is less likely to be consumed by resistance, distrust, or unresolved conflict. Poor relations make the situation less favorable because the leader has less interpersonal support for directing collective effort.
This term can easily be confused with Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) theory, but the constructs are not interchangeable. In Fiedler’s model, leader–member relations are a situational component used to classify the leader’s overall control. LMX theory developed as a theory of differentiated dyadic relationships between a leader and individual followers and has its own measures, antecedents, consequences, and meta-analytic literature (Dulebohn et al., 2012). The reserved English Hub article on LMX will therefore own that separate intent once published.
2. Task Structure
Task structure refers to how clearly the group’s work is specified. Highly structured tasks have clearer goals, procedures, standards, solutions, or verifiable outcomes. Low-structure tasks are more ambiguous, novel, creative, uncertain, or open to multiple legitimate approaches. A structured task generally gives the leader more situational control because expectations and performance criteria are easier to define and monitor.
Task structure is not the same thing as task difficulty. A task can be difficult yet highly structured, as in a technically demanding procedure with explicit steps and clear success criteria. A task can also be relatively easy but poorly structured if goals, roles, or acceptable solutions are vague. The model’s logic concerns clarity and programmability more than raw cognitive difficulty.
3. Position Power
Position power is the formal power attached to the leader’s organizational role—the capacity provided by the position to reward, punish, promote, discipline, allocate resources, or otherwise affect valued outcomes. Strong position power increases situational control; weak position power leaves the leader more dependent on persuasion, expertise, relationships, or informal influence.
Position power is narrower than power in social psychology. Power is often conceptualized more broadly as asymmetric control over valued resources, while status refers to respect and esteem in the eyes of others. Power and status can correlate but are distinct bases of hierarchy (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Dominance and prestige are likewise distinct routes to social rank and influence rather than synonyms for formal authority (Cheng et al., 2013). For the broader distinction among influence, status, authority, and followership, see Power and Leadership: Influence, Status, Authority, and Followership.
The Eight Leadership Situations
Combining two levels of leader–member relations, two levels of task structure, and two levels of position power produces eight configurations, conventionally called octants. They run from a situation offering the leader high control to one offering very low control.
Situation I: good leader–member relations, high task structure, strong position power. The leader has interpersonal acceptance, clear work, and substantial formal control.
Situation II: good leader–member relations, high task structure, weak position power. The group relationship and task clarity are favorable, but formal sanctions and rewards are limited.
Situation III: good leader–member relations, low task structure, strong position power. The leader is accepted and formally powerful, but the work itself is ambiguous or less programmable.
Situation IV: good leader–member relations, low task structure, weak position power. Interpersonal relations are favorable, while both task clarity and formal power are limited.
Situation V: poor leader–member relations, high task structure, strong position power. The task and formal role create control, but the leader lacks strong relational support.
Situation VI: poor leader–member relations, high task structure, weak position power. The task is clear, yet relational support and formal power are both weak.
Situation VII: poor leader–member relations, low task structure, strong position power. Formal authority is substantial, but the leader faces weak relationships and an ambiguous task.
Situation VIII: poor leader–member relations, low task structure, weak position power. Relationships, task clarity, and formal role power all provide little control.
Popular summaries often turn these eight configurations into a crisp lookup table in which low-LPC leaders are assigned to the highest- and lowest-control situations and high-LPC leaders to intermediate-control situations. That captures the famous shape of the theory but makes the evidence look cleaner than it was. The original octant-level correlations were uneven, and later reviews disagreed about how strongly particular cells were supported. The eight situations are therefore best understood as the architecture of the model, not as eight independently established laws.
What the Model Predicts
At the broadest level, Fiedler proposed a curvilinear matching pattern. Task-motivated, low-LPC leaders were expected to perform especially well when situational control was very high and again when it was very low. Relationship-motivated, high-LPC leaders were expected to perform better across much of the intermediate-control range. The proposed explanation was motivational: when control is high, task-motivated leaders can concentrate on performance; when control is extremely low, task focus again becomes primary; in mixed situations, relationship motives may help leaders secure cooperation and navigate interpersonal uncertainty.
This is a prediction about relative effectiveness under specified conditions. It does not mean relationship-oriented leadership is generally “better for people,” that task-oriented leadership is inherently harsh, or that a leader should ignore relationships in extreme situations. Those interpretations go beyond the constructs actually tested.
What Does the Evidence Show?
The evidence base is historically substantial and scientifically contested. That combination matters. Fiedler’s model generated enough research to become a major test case for contingency thinking, but the empirical record does not justify presenting its full prediction curve as settled fact.
Early validation and criticism
Some studies supported predicted leader–situation relationships, while others did not. Vecchio’s 1977 factorial test used 48 four-person groups and manipulated LPC category, leader–member relations, task structure, and position power; its analyses failed to support the model’s predictions (Vecchio, 1977). Other reviews and tests reached more favorable conclusions, producing a long methodological dispute over how the model should be evaluated.
Strube and Garcia’s 1981 meta-analysis
Strube and Garcia applied meta-analytic methods to 145 hypothesis tests plus 33 results on which the original model had been based. They concluded that the model was robust in predicting group performance and that including additional studies increased its predictive power (Strube & Garcia, 1981). This study is one reason the contingency model cannot fairly be dismissed as an idea that received no empirical support.
Peters, Hartke, and Pohlmann’s 1985 reanalysis
A later meta-analysis using Schmidt–Hunter procedures produced a more qualified picture. Peters and colleagues concluded that the theory was appropriately induced from the studies on which it had been based, but studies conducted specifically to test the model were less supportive. In their analysis, laboratory data supported all octants except Octant II, whereas field data produced supportive evidence in only four of eight octants (Peters et al., 1985). Their conclusion was not that context was irrelevant, but that additional variables were needed to explain the remaining variance.
Later theoretical reassessment
Ayman, Chemers, and Fiedler later described the model as having received substantial support alongside strong criticism. They emphasized its multilevel and multisource character and argued that conceptual disputes about LPC and situational components had complicated tests of the theory (Ayman et al., 1995). That assessment fits the historical record better than either “fully proven” or “debunked.”
The strongest modern conclusion
Modern leadership research strongly supports the general proposition that context matters. Vroom and Jago argued that contingency theories are particularly consistent with the evidence on situational effects; Liden and Antonakis called for more contextualized leadership research; and Oc’s systematic review mapped hundreds of studies examining how context shapes leadership and outcomes (Vroom & Jago, 2007; Liden & Antonakis, 2009; Oc, 2018). This supports contingency thinking as a research orientation. It does not retroactively validate every specific LPC octant prediction.
Prediction Is Not the Same as Causation
Much of the classic contingency-model literature examined correlations between LPC and group performance within situational categories, supplemented by laboratory and field tests. A correlation that changes across contexts can support a moderation hypothesis, but it does not by itself establish that changing LPC, leader–member relations, task structure, or position power will cause a predictable improvement in performance.
Experimental manipulation can strengthen causal inference, but the historical experiments were often small, used constrained group tasks, or operationalized situational dimensions in ways that may not generalize to contemporary organizations. Meta-analysis can estimate the consistency and size of associations across studies, but it cannot turn weak underlying designs into randomized causal evidence. For practice, the model is therefore more defensible as a structured fit hypothesis than as a guaranteed intervention rule.
Fiedler’s Theory vs Situational Leadership
Fiedler’s contingency model and Hersey–Blanchard Situational Leadership are often merged because both say that leadership effectiveness depends on the situation. Their mechanisms are different.
Fiedler’s model treats the leader orientation indexed by LPC as relatively stable and emphasizes matching the leader to the situation or engineering the situation. Situational Leadership asks leaders to vary task and relationship behavior according to a follower’s task-specific readiness or development. In other words, Fiedler’s model is mainly a leader–situation fit theory; Situational Leadership is mainly an adaptive behavior prescription. See Situational Leadership: Hersey, Blanchard, Readiness, Flexibility, and Evidence for that model’s distinct history and evidence base.
Robert House’s path-goal theory is another contingency approach, but it uses a different mechanism: leader behavior is proposed to affect follower motivation by clarifying paths to valued goals and interacting with follower and task characteristics. The English Hub’s Path-Goal Theory article is reserved as a future node, so no live link is activated here until its exact /en/ canonical exists.
Fiedler’s Leader–Member Relations vs LMX Theory
The shared phrase “leader–member” creates another recurring source of confusion. In Fiedler’s model, leader–member relations are one of three contextual dimensions. They help locate the leader on the situational-control continuum. The construct concerns how favorable the group relationship is for leadership.
Leader–Member Exchange theory, by contrast, studies the quality and differentiation of individual leader–follower dyads. Meta-analytic work on LMX examines antecedents and outcomes such as performance, satisfaction, commitment, turnover intentions, and relationship characteristics (Dulebohn et al., 2012). Treating Fiedler’s leader–member relations score as if it were an LMX measure would collapse two separate research traditions. The dedicated English Hub LMX article remains a future backfill opportunity until publication.
Leadership, Management, Supervision, Authority, and Power
Fiedler’s model was built around group leadership effectiveness, but many real organizational cases involve managers and supervisors. A manager may possess formal authority because of an organizational position, exercise supervisory responsibilities such as scheduling or performance evaluation, and also provide leadership through influence and coordination. These roles overlap without becoming identical.
The model’s position-power variable belongs to this formal side of organizational structure. It does not measure the leader’s charisma, prestige, popularity, expertise, dominance, or moral legitimacy. A supervisor could have strong position power but low status among peers; a respected expert could have high status and influence but little formal authority. Keeping those constructs separate is necessary for both research and diagnosis. The broader architecture is covered in Leadership Psychology: Styles, Traits, Power, Followership, and Leadership Effectiveness and the cross-cluster bridge on Power and Leadership.
What the Theory Does Not Measure
Fiedler’s contingency model does not measure leader emergence. It assumes a leader is identifiable and asks when that leader’s orientation is associated with stronger group performance. Being selected, nominated, or informally recognized as a leader is a different outcome.
It does not measure charisma. Followers may perceive a leader as charismatic, but perceived charisma is neither LPC nor situational control and should not be treated as evidence that the Fiedler match is effective.
It does not diagnose personality disorders or dark personality traits. LPC is not a clinical instrument, and it provides no basis for labeling a leader narcissistic, psychopathic, or otherwise disordered.
It does not define one universally best leadership style. The model was designed precisely to reject that premise.
It also does not establish that all contingencies relevant to leadership are captured by three situational variables. Contemporary work examines many contextual features beyond Fiedler’s original triad, including organizational level, culture, team composition, technology, environmental uncertainty, time pressure, task interdependence, and distributed expertise (Oc, 2018).
Strengths of Fiedler’s Contingency Model
It made context theoretically central
The model’s most durable contribution is architectural. It forced leadership research to specify when a leader characteristic should matter rather than averaging across situations and assuming a universal effect. That logic remains fundamental to modern moderator-based and context-sensitive leadership research.
It separated leader characteristics from situational characteristics
Fiedler did not explain performance by simply calling a leader good or bad. The model requires separate assessment of the leader and the environment. This protects against circular explanations in which success is treated as proof of good leadership and failure as proof of bad leadership.
It generated testable predictions
The model specifies measurable components and a predicted interaction. That made it vulnerable to empirical criticism, which is a scientific strength. Researchers could test the octants, challenge the LPC construct, manipulate situational factors, and meta-analyze accumulated results.
It anticipated leader–context fit thinking
Contemporary organizational psychology frequently treats behavior and effectiveness as context-dependent. Although later theories use different variables and mechanisms, Fiedler helped establish the expectation that leadership should be studied in relation to the situation rather than as an isolated property of the leader.
Limitations and Criticism
The meaning of LPC remains contested
The central measurement problem is that a score can predict something without being conceptually transparent. Reviews found some evidence consistent with task-versus-relationship interpretations, but LPC also showed complex factor structure, scoring, stability, and construct-validity issues. Later studies found additional problems with independence from related constructs and the bipolar adjective format (Rice, 1978a; Kennedy et al., 1987; Schriesheim & Klich, 1991).
Situational control is more complex than a three-factor label
The neat triad of leader–member relations, task structure, and position power is conceptually useful, but measurement work suggested that situational control may contain more dimensions than the simple model implies. Stewart and Latham’s factor analysis, for example, identified multiple components within both LPC and situational-control measures and called for stronger operationalization (Stewart & Latham, 1986).
Evidence varies across octants and settings
The later meta-analytic record did not show uniform support. Peters and colleagues found a clear lab-versus-field difference, with only half the field octants supportive in their analysis (Peters et al., 1985). This is one reason a modern article should resist turning the eight-cell model into a deterministic management calculator.
The assumption of a relatively stable style is restrictive
Leaders can learn behaviors, change strategies, develop expertise, and respond differently across relationships and situations. Fiedler’s model was never simply a behavior-flexibility theory, so contemporary evidence that leaders adapt behavior does not directly falsify its original construct. It does, however, limit the practicality of telling organizations to treat a leader orientation as fixed when other theories and interventions explicitly target learnable behavior.
The model does not cover all leadership mechanisms
Leadership can operate through motivation, identity, sensemaking, expertise, communication, coordination, relationships, shared cognition, rewards, ethics, and many other mechanisms. Modern reviews describe a diverse field rather than a single theory replacing all others (Dinh et al., 2014). Fiedler’s model answers one class of fit question; it does not exhaust leadership psychology.
How to Apply Fiedler’s Model Without Turning It Into Corporate Pseudoscience
A scientifically responsible application begins by treating the model as a structured hypothesis about fit rather than a personality verdict.
1. Define the outcome first
Specify what “effective” means before classifying the leader. Team output, safety, decision quality, learning, innovation, retention, and follower well-being are different outcomes. A leader can improve one while harming another. A vague effectiveness score hides those trade-offs.
2. Measure leader orientation carefully
If LPC is used, use a documented version and interpret it within the model’s limitations. Do not substitute a homemade internet quiz or infer LPC from whether someone seems warm, decisive, introverted, authoritarian, or “people focused.”
3. Assess the three situational dimensions separately
Ask how accepted and trusted the leader is by the relevant group, how structured the task actually is, and how much formal position power the role carries. Do not collapse all three into a vague judgment that the environment is “good” or “bad.”
4. Look for mismatch as a hypothesis
If performance is poor, the model suggests asking whether the leader–situation combination is unfavorable. That is a diagnostic hypothesis, not proof. Poor performance may instead reflect missing resources, unrealistic goals, skill gaps, market shocks, conflict, incentives, team design, fatigue, or other causes.
5. Consider changing the situation
A distinct practical implication of Fiedler’s approach is situational engineering. Organizations can sometimes clarify roles and procedures, change formal authority, redesign decision rights, alter team composition, or improve leader–member relations. These interventions should be evaluated on their own evidence and consequences rather than justified solely because a contingency chart recommends them.
6. Track outcomes after the change
A real application should create a testable before-and-after expectation and monitor relevant outcomes. Without outcome data, “better fit” becomes an unfalsifiable story told after the fact.
Illustrative Examples
Consider a highly regulated operations team with trusted leadership, clear procedures, and strong formal authority. Fiedler’s framework classifies this as a high-control situation. The model would lead an analyst to examine whether a task-motivated orientation fits the work. That does not prove a task-oriented leader will outperform alternatives; it identifies a historical prediction that should be tested against real outcomes.
Now consider a cross-functional innovation team whose leader is well accepted but has little formal authority and faces an ambiguous task. This is a mixed-control situation. Fiedler’s theory makes relationship motivation more relevant in the intermediate range, while contemporary leadership research would also ask about expertise distribution, psychological safety, coordination, team identity, and decision processes. The contingency model supplies one lens, not the entire causal map.
Finally, consider a turnaround leader entering a distrustful group with ambiguous work and weak formal authority. The situation offers very low control. Fiedler’s classic curve places the lowest-control end closer to the region where low-LPC task motivation was predicted to be relatively effective. Yet a practitioner should not read this as permission for coercive behavior. Task focus, formal coercion, dominance, and abusive supervision are separate constructs.
Why Fiedler Still Matters
Fiedler’s contingency model matters because it changed the grammar of the leadership question. Instead of asking only “What makes a good leader?” it asked “Under what conditions is this leader characteristic associated with effective performance?” That shift is still visible across leadership science.
The field has moved well beyond the original eight octants. Contextual leadership research now examines a much wider set of moderators and levels of analysis, while modern reviews question broad, bundled style labels and push for more precise behavioral and causal models (Oc, 2018; Carton, 2022). Fiedler’s lasting value is therefore strongest as a foundational contingency architecture and a historically consequential empirical program.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership?
It is a theory proposing that group effectiveness depends on the match between a leader’s motivational orientation, indexed by the Least Preferred Coworker score, and situational control, defined through leader–member relations, task structure, and position power.
What are the three situational factors in Fiedler’s model?
They are leader–member relations, task structure, and position power. Together they define how much control or favorableness the situation provides to the leader.
What is the LPC scale?
The Least Preferred Coworker scale asks a person to rate the coworker with whom they have found it most difficult to work. Fiedler used the resulting score as an indicator of task versus relationship motivation. The scale has a substantial historical literature and significant construct-validity and psychometric criticism.
Which leadership style is best in Fiedler’s theory?
None is universally best. The theory predicts different relative effectiveness for low-LPC and high-LPC leaders under different levels of situational control. This is the central contingency claim.
Is Fiedler’s theory the same as Situational Leadership?
No. Both are context-sensitive, but Fiedler emphasizes matching a relatively stable leader orientation to the situation, whereas Hersey–Blanchard Situational Leadership prescribes changing task and relationship behavior according to follower readiness or development.
What is position power?
Position power is the formal control attached to the leader’s role, such as authority over rewards, sanctions, promotion, discipline, or resource allocation. It is not identical to status, prestige, expertise, charisma, dominance, or influence.
Is Fiedler’s contingency theory supported by research?
The answer is mixed. Classic meta-analyses found meaningful support, but the pattern varied across octants and between laboratory and field studies. Direct tests and psychometric research also identified important limitations. The broad principle that leadership effectiveness depends on context has stronger and more enduring support than the claim that every exact LPC-by-octant prediction is established.
Can leaders change their style?
People can learn and change behavior. Fiedler’s original model, however, treated the underlying LPC-related orientation as relatively stable and therefore emphasized matching or changing the situation. This is one of the model’s defining differences from adaptive-style theories.
Is an online LPC test a validated leadership assessment?
Not automatically. A web quiz may imitate the historical LPC format without preserving scoring, norms, measurement properties, or interpretive limits. Personnel decisions should not be based on an unvalidated adaptation.
Related Articles
References
Ayman, R., Chemers, M. M., & Fiedler, F. (1995). The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: Its levels of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90032-2
Carton, A. M. (2022). The science of leadership: A theoretical model and research agenda. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9, 61–93. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091227
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich, J. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030398
Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715–1759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311415280
Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 149–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60051-9
Fiedler, F. E. (1978). The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 59–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60005-2
Kennedy, J. K., Jr., Houston, J. M., Korsgaard, M. A., & Gallo, D. D. (1987). Construct space of the Least Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47(3), 807–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448704700335
Liden, R. C., & Antonakis, J. (2009). Considering context in psychological leadership research. Human Relations, 62(11), 1587–1605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709346374
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351–398. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211628
Oc, B. (2018). Contextual leadership: A systematic review of how contextual factors shape leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 218–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.004
Peters, L. H., Hartke, D. D., & Pohlmann, J. T. (1985). Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership: An application of the meta-analysis procedures of Schmidt and Hunter. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.2.274
Rice, R. W. (1978a). Construct validity of the Least Preferred Co-Worker score. Psychological Bulletin, 85(6), 1199–1237. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.85.6.1199
Rice, R. W. (1978b). Psychometric properties of the Esteem for Least Preferred Coworker (LPC Scale). Academy of Management Review, 3(1), 106–118. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1978.4296576
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164491512004
Stewart, D. W., & Latham, D. R. (1986). On some psychometric properties of Fiedler’s contingency model of leadership. Small Group Behavior, 17(1), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649648601700107
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.90.2.307
Vecchio, R. P. (1977). An empirical examination of the validity of Fiedler’s model of leadership effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19(1), 180–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(77)90061-7
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.17