.

..
.

http://peoria.k12.il.us/msmith/isu_cohort/eaf583/Fiedler%20-%20The%20Contingency%20Model.pdf
eadings in social psyYork: Holt, 1952.
, Gurin, G., &
:ivity, supervision,
d w~~kirs. Ann Ar.earch Center, 195 1.
& Morse, Nancy
ion and mode in an
inn Arbor, Mich.:
:r, 1951.
leadership in the fitor, Mich.: Survey

21
The Contingency Model: A Theory of
Leadership Effectiveness1

NOTICE: The copyright law of the United States (Title 17

U.S. Code) governs the making of photocopies or printouts
of copyrighted materials. The person using this system is
liable for any infringement.

Red E. Fiedler
Leadership, as a problem in social psy
chology, has dealt primarily with two
questions, namely, how one becomes a
leader, and how one can become a good
leader, that is, how one develops effective group performance. Since a number of excellent reviews (e.g., Stogdill,
1948; Gibb, 1954; Mann, 1959; Bass,
1960), have already dealt with the first
question we shall not be concerned with
it in the present paper.
The second question, whether a
given leader will be more or less effective than others in similar situations,
has been a more difficult problem of research and has received correspondingly less attention in the psychological
literature. The theoretical status of
the problem is well reflected by Browne
and Cohns (1958) statement that
. . .
leadership literature is a mass of
content without coagulating substances
to bring it together or to produce coordination . . . McGrath (1962), i n
The present paper is mainly based on research
conducted under Office of Naval Research
Contracts 170-106, N6-ori-07135 (Fred E.
Fiedler. Principal Investigator) and RN 177472, Noor 1834(36). (Fred E. Fiedler, C. E.
Osgood, L. M. Stolurow, and H. C. Triandis,
Principal Investigators.) The writer is
especially indebted to his colleagues, A. R.
Bass, L. J. Cronbach. M. Fishbein. J. E.
McGrath, W. A. T. Meuwese. C. E. Osgood,
H. C. Triandis. and L. R. Tucker, who offered
invaluable suggestions and criticisms ar various
stages of the work.

making a similar point, ascribed this situation to the tendency of investigators

to select different variables and to work
with idiosyncratic measures and definitions of leadership. He also pointed out,
however, that most researchers in this
area have gravitated toward two presumably crucial clusters of leadership attitudes and behaviors. These are the
critical, directive, autocratic, task-oriented versus the democratic, permissive, considerate, person-oriented type
of leadership. While this categorization
is admittedly oversimplified, the major
controversy in this area has been between the morebrthodox viewpoint, reflected in traditional supervisory training and military doctrine that the leader
should be decisive and forceful, that he
should do the planning and thinking for
the groups, and that he should coordinate, direct and evaluate his mens actions. The other viewpoint, reflected in
the newer human relations oriented
training and in the philosophy behind
non-directive and brain-storming technique stresses the need for democratic,
permissive, group-oriented leadership
techniques. Both schools of thought
have strong adherents and there is evidence supporting both points of view
(Gibb, 1954; Hare, 1962).
While one can always rationalize
that contradictory findings by other investigators are due to poor research de-

Source: From The Contingency Model: A Theory of Leadership Ef&ctiveness by Fred E.

Fiedler, in Probh in So&l Psychology, edited by Carl W. Backman and Paul F. Secord, pp. 279289. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970. Reprinted by permission of the author.

299

Leadership

sign, or different tests and criteria, such

problems present difficulties if they appear in ones own research. We have,
during the past thirteen years, conducted a large number of studies on
leadership and group performance, using the same operational definitions and
essentially similar leader attitude measures. The inconsistencies which we obtained in our own research program
demanded an integrative theoretical
formulation which would adequately account for the seemingly confusing results.
The studies which we conducted
used as the major predictor of group performance an interpersonal perception or
attitude score which is derived from
the leaders description of his most and
of his least preferred co-workers. He
is asked to think of all others with
whom he has ever worked, and then to
describe first the person with whom
he worked best (his most preferred
coworker) and then the person with
whom he could work least well (his least
preferred co-worker, or LPC) . These descriptions are obtained, wherever possible, before the leader is assigned to his
team. However, even when we deal
with already existing groups, these descriptions tend to be of individuals
whom the subject has known in the past
rather than of persons with whom he
works at the time of testing.
The descriptions are typically made
on 20 eight-point bipolar adjective
scales, similar to Osgoods Semantic
Differential (Osgood, et al., 1957),
e.g.,
Pleasant -:-:-:-i,:,:,:,Unpleasant
I

Friendly -:-:,:-iv:-:-:,Unfriendly
.w
.;
!

: I-. .,

These items are scaled on an evaluative dimension, giving a score of

8 to the most favorable pole (i.e.,
Friendly, Pleasant) and a score of I to

the least favorable pole. Two main

scores have been derived from these descriptions. The first one, which was
used in our earlier studies, is based on
the profile similarity measure D (Cronbath and Gleser, 1953) between the descriptions of the most and of the least
preferred co-worker. This core, called
the Assumed Similarity between Gpposites, or ASo, indicates the degree to
which the individual perceives the two
opposites on his co-worker continuum
as similar or different. The second score
is simply based on the individuals
description of his least preferred coworker, I-PC, and indicates the degree
to which the subject evaluates his LPC
in a relatively favorable or unfavorable
manner. The two measures are highh
correlated (.80 to .95) and will here be
treated as interchangeable.
We have had considerable difficulty
in interpreting these scores since they
appear to be uncorrelated with the usual
personality and attitude measures. They
are, however, related to the Ohio State
University studies Initiation of structure and Consideration dimensions
(Stogdill and Coons, 1957). Extensive
content analysis (Meuwese and Gonk,
1960; Julian and McGrath, 1963; Morris and Fiedler, 1964) and a series of
studies by Hawkins (1962) as well as research by Bass, Fiedler, and Krueger
(1964) have given consistent results.
These indicate that the person with
high I-PC or ASo, who perceives hi
least preferred co-worker in a relatively
favorable, accepting manner, tends to
be more accepting, permissive, considerate, and person-oriented in his rek+
tions with group members. The person
who perceives his most and least pre
ferred co-workers as quite different, and
who sees his least preferred coworker in
a very unfavorable, rejecting manner
tends to be directive, task-oriented and
*
controlling on task relevant group be- : i,
haviors in his interactions.
. .*
.;; f.

7%econti7.

.j\

ASo and LPC

with group perfc
ety of studies, a
above, not cons
rection. For exam
high school ba:
ciometrically ch
correlated - .6
percent of gam
- .51 with the ;
civil engineer
and the melter f
related - .52 v
open-hearth she
1956). These n
dicate t h a t lot
were associated
. formance, i.e.
performed bett
rective leaders t
sive, accepting
the ASo score
accepted camp
also negatively
come of cons
board chairmar
same circumst
(Godfrey, Fiec
Thus, groups
seemed to reqi
tudes. In a mc
creativity in H
SCOR correlated
in religiously Iformally appoir
religiously het
while the cone
geneous groups
was -&in1
ing emergent (
kai;;) . (Fied
The results
clearly shower
magnitude of t
tingent upon
task situation
to deal. Our
then into (a)

The Contingency Model: A Theory of Lade&~ Ejjictiveness

. Two main
rom these deI, which was
j, is based on
ure D (Crontween the ded of the least
s core, called
etween Oppothe degree to
:eives the two
.er continuum
e second score
e individuals
preferred cotes the degree
luates his LPC
or unfavorable
rres are highly
Id will here be
e.
rable difficulty
)res since they
i with the usual
neasures. They
the Ohio State
ation of stfuc,n dimensions
57). Extensive
ese and Oonk,
th, 1963; Morand a series of
2) as well as re, and Krueger
isistent results.
ie person with
CI perceives his
r in a relatively
Inner, tends to
nissive, considted in his relaers. The person
t and least prete different, and
-red coworker in
zjecting manner
rsk-oriented and
evant group be*
ms .

ASo and LPC scores correlated highly

with group performance in a wide variety of studies, although, as mentioned
above, not consistently in the same die
rection. For example, in two samples of
high school basketball teams the sociometrically chosen leaders ASo score
correlated -.69 and -.58 with the
percent of games won by teams and
- .5 1 with the accuracy of surveying of
civil engineer teams (Fiedler, 1954),
and the melter foremans ASo score correlated - .52 with tonnage output of
open-hearth shops (Cleven and Fiedler,
1956). These negative correlations indicate that low ASo or LPC scores
were associated with good group performance, i.e., that these groups
performed better under managing, directive leaders than under more permissive, accepting leaders. However, while
the ASo score of the sociometrically
accepted company manager correlated
also negatively ( - .70) with the net income of consumer cooperatives, the
board chairmans ASo score under the
same circumstances correlated + .62
(Godfrey, Fiedler, and Hall, 1959).
Thus, groups with different tasks
seemed to require different leader attitudes. In a more recent study of group
creativity in Holland, the leaders LPC
score correlated with performance + .75
in religiously homogeneous groups with
formally appointed leaders, but - .72 in
religiously heterogeneous groups; and
while the correlation was + .75 in homogeneous groups with appointed leaders it
was - 64 in homogeneous groups having emergent (sociometrically nominated
ieadrs). (Fiedler, Meuwese and Oonk,
The results of these investigations
clearly showed that the direction and
magnitude of the correlations were contingent upon the nature of the grouptask situation with which the leader had
to deal. Our problem resolved itself
then into (a) developing a meaningful

301

system for categorizing group-task situations; (b) inducing the underlying the.
ore&al model which would integrate
the seemingly inconsistent results obtained in our studies, and (c) testing the
validity of the model by adequate research.
DEVELOPMENT OF
THE MODEL
Key definitions. We shall here be concerned solely with interacting rather
than co-acting task groups. By an interacting task group we mean a face-toface team situation (such as a basketball
team) in which the members work
irtterde@tly on a common goal. In
groups of this type, the individuals contributions cannot readily be separated
from total group performance. In a
co-acting group, however, such as a
bowling or a rifle team, the group performance is generally determined by
summing the members individual performance scores.
We shall define the leader as the
group member who is officially ap
pointed or elected to direct and coordinate group action. In groups in which
no one has been so designated, we have
identified the informal leader by means
of sociometric preference questions such
as asking group members to name the
person who was most influential in the
group, or whom they would most prefer
to have as a leader in a similar task.
The leaders effectiveness is here defined in terms of the groups performance on the assigned primary task.
Thus, although a company manager
may have, as one of his tasks, the job of
maintaining good relations with his customers, his main job, and the one on
which he is in the final analysis evaluated, consists of the long range profitability of the company. Good relations
with customers, or high morale and low
labor turnover may well contribute to

302
success, but they would not be the basic
criteria by this definition.
Tk categorization of group-task sicuations. Leadership is essentially a problem of wielding influence and power.
When we say that different types of
groups require different types of leadership we imply that they require a different relationship by which the leader
wields power and influence. Since it is
easier to wield power in some groups
than in others, an attempt to categorize
groups might well begin by asking what
conditions in the group-task situation
will facilitate or inhibit the leaders exercise of power. On the basis of our previous work we postulated three important aspects in the total situation which
influence the leaders role.
1 . Leader-member&lions. Theleader who is personally attractive to his
group members, and who is respected by
hi group, enjoys considerable power
(French, 1956). In fact, ifhe has the confidence and loyalty of hi men he has less
need of official rank. This dimension can
generally be measured by means of sociometric indices or by group atmosphere
scaleS (Cf. Fiedler, 1962) which indicate
the degree to which the leader experiences the groups as pleasant and well disposed toward him.
2. Tark strucr~re. The task generally
implies an order from above which incorporates the authority of the superior
organization. The group member who
refuses to comply must be prepared to
face disciplinary action by the higher
authority. For example, a squad member
who fails to perform a lawful command
of his sergeant may have to answer to
his regimental commander. However,
compliance with a task order can be enforced only if the task is relatively well
structured, i.e., if it is capable of being
programmed, or spelled out step by step.
One cannot effectively force a group to

LdtTShip

perform well on an unstructured task

such as developing a new product or
writing a good play.
Thus, the leader who has a sttuctured
task can depend on the backing of his
superior organizations, but if he has an
unstructured task the leader must rely
on his own resources to inspire and motivate his men. The unstructured task
thus provides the leader with much less
effective power than does the highly
structured task.
We operationalized this dimension by
utilizing four of the aspects which Shaw
(1962) recently proposed for the classification of group task. These are, (a) decision uerijiability, the degree to which
the correcmess of the solution can be
demonstrated objectively; (b) good ckzrity, the degree to which the task requirements are clearly stated or known to the
group; (c) goal path multiplicity, the degree to which there are many or few procedures available for performing the
task (reverse scoring); and (d) soiutiun
specificity, the degree to which there is
one rather than an infinite number of
correct solutions (e.g., writing a story
vs. solving an equation). Ratings based
on these four dimensions have yielded
interrater reliabilities of .80 to .90.
3. Position @UKT. The third dimension is defined by the power inherent in
the position of leadership irrespective of
the occupants personal relations with
his members. This includes the rewards
and punishments which are officially or
traditionally at the leaders disposal, his
authority as defined by the groups rules
and by-laws, and the organizational sup
port given to him in dealing with his
men. This dimension can be operationally defined by means of a check list
(Fiedler, 1964) containing items such as
Leader can effect promotion or demotion, Leader enjoys special rank and
status in real life which sets him apart

Ti tom:,,
FlGURE

t+:

(-

from, and a
The mediur
four indepen
situations w;
Athreedir
Group-task 5
on the basis
leader-memt
and positior
group in a t
rough categ
plished by t
sions so tha
cube (Fig. 1
whether the
attitudes an{
each of thes
relatively sil
rection. If t
the group c
cessfilly ac

L&&l-Ship

m unstructured task
g a new product or
,.
t who has a structured
n the backing of his
ens, but if he has an
the leader must rely
es to inspire and mohe unstructured task
.eader with much less
Ian does the highly
.zed this.dimension by
e aspects which Shaw
.oposed for the classiak. These are, (a) dethe degree to which
the solution can be
xtively; (b) good cIarrhich the task requirexated or known to the
th multiplicity, the dee are many or few profor performing the
ing); and (d) solution
;ree to which there is
an infinite number of
(e.g., writing a story
lation). Ratings based
nensions have yielded
ties of .80 to .90.
uer. The third dimenthe power inherent in
Idership irrespective of
ersonal relations with
is includes the rewards
which are officially or
re leaders disposal, his
led by the groups rules
the organizational supm in dealing with his
rsion can be operationmeans of a check list
ontaining items such as
ct promotion or demonjoys special rank and
I which sets him apart

TheCmtingencyModel:A

TkqofL.eadenhi~ Effectiveness

303

FIGURE 1 . A MODEL FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF GROUP-TASK

SITUATIONS.

(+I

Afi ective leadermember relations

from, and above his group members.

The medium interrater agreement of
four independent judges rating 35 group
situations was .95.
A three dimensional group classifiarion.
Group-task situations can now be rated
on the basis of the three dimensions of
leader-member relations, task structure,
and position power. This locates each
group in a three dimensional space. A
rough categorization can be accomplished by halving each of the dimensions so that we obtain an eight celled
cube (Fig. 1). We can now determine
whether the correlations between leader
attitudes and group performance within
each of these eight cells, or octants, are
relatively similar in magnitude and direction. If they are, we can infer that
the group classification has been sue*
cessfully accomplished since it shows

that groups falling within the same octant require similar leader attitudes.
An earlier paper has summarized 52
group-task situations which are based
on our previous studies (Fiedler, 1964).
These 52 group-task situations have
been ordered into the eight octants. As
can be seen from Table 1, groups falling
within the same octant show correlations between the leaders ASo or LPC
score and the group performance criterion which are relatively similar in magnitude and direction. We can thus .infer
that the group classification has been
accomplished with at least reasonable
success.
Consideration of Figure 1 suggests a
further classification of the cells in term
of the effective power which the group
task situation places at the leaders disposal, or more precisely, the favorable-

TABLE 1

MEDIAN CORRELATION BETWEEN LEADER LPC AND

GROUP PERFORMANCE IN VARIOUS OCIANTs

Number of

Relations
Leader-Member
Relations
Octant I
G&d
Octant II Good
Octant III Good
Octant IV Good
Octant V
Mod. poor
Chant VI
Mod. poor
Cktant VII
Mod. poor
Chant VIII Mod. poor

L
?

f
4 _

i9

Task

Strucnlre

Position Median
Correlation
Power

Strong
snucnlred
Weak
sttuctured
Unstructured Strong
Unstructured Weak
Strong
smlctured
Weak
Structured
Unstructured Strong
Unsm~ctwed W e a k

ness of the situation for the leaders

exercise of his power and influence.
Such an ordering can be accomplished without difficulty at the extreme
poles of the continuum. A liked and
trusted leader with high rank and a
structured task is in a more favorable
position than is a disliked and powerless
leader with an ambiguous task. The intermediate steps pose certain theoretical
and methodological problems. To collapse a three-dimensional system into a
unidimensional one implies in Coombs
terms a partial order or a lexicographic
system for which there is no unique solution. Such an ordering must, therefore, be done either intuitively or in
accordance with some reasonable assumptions. In the present instance we
have postulated that the most important dimension in the system is the
leader-member relationship since the
highly liked and respected leader is less
in need of position power or the power
of the higher authority incorporated in
the task structure. The second-most important dimension in most group-task
situations is the task structure since a
leader with a highly structured task does
not require a powerful leader position.

- .52
- .58
-.41
.47
.42
.05
-.43

Included

in Median
2
3
4
10
6
0
10
12

(For example, privates or non-commissioned officers in the army are at times

called upon to lead or instruct officers
in certain highly structured tasks such as
demonstrating a new weapon, or, for
example, teaching medical officers close
order drill-though not in unstructured
tasks such as planning new policies on
strategy.) This leads us here to order the
group-task situations first on leadermember relations, then on task structure, and finally on position power.
While admittedly not a unique solution, the resulting ordering constitutes
a reasonable continuum which indicates the degree of the leaders effective
power in the group.*
As was already apparent from Table
1, the relationship between leader attitudes and group performance is contingent upon the accurate classification of
the group-task situation. A more mean-

Another cell should be added which contains

real-life groups which reject their leader.
Exercise of power would be very dificult in
this situation and such a cell should be pkd
at the extreme negative end of the continuum.
Such cases are treated in the section on
validation.

:N LEADER LPC AND

S OCTANTS

Mediin
Correlation
-.52
-.58
-.41
.47
.42
.05
-.43

Number of
Relations
Included
in Median
2
3
4
10

6
0
1

I2

le, privates or non-commisers in the army are at times

L to lead or instruct officers
ighly structured tasks such as
Ing a new weapon, or, for
aching medical officers close
-though not in unstructured
3s planning new policies on
his leads us here to order the
situations first on leader.ations, then on task strucfinally on position power.
wittedly not a unique soluzsulting ordering constitutes
le continuum which indiagree of the leaders effective
ie gr0up.l
already apparent from Table
ionship between leader atti:roup performance is continthe accurate classification of
ask situation. A more mean-

II should be added which contains

ups which reject their leader.
Jower would be very difficult-in
I and such a cell should be placed
ne negative end of the continuum.
re treated in the section on

306
ingful model of this contingency relationship emerges when we now plot the
correlation between LPC or ASo and
group performance on the one hand,
against the octants ordered on the effective power, or favorableness-for-theleader dimension on the other. This is
shown on Figure 2. Note that each
point in the plot is a correlation predicting leadership performance or group effectiveness. -l-he plot therefore represents 53 sets of groups totalling over 800
separate groups.
As Figure 2 shows, managing, controlling, directive (low I-PC) leaders
perform most effectively either under
very favorable or under very unfavorable situations. Hence we obtain neg
ative correlations between LPC and
group performance scores. Considerate, permissive, accepting leaders obtain optimal group performance under
situations intermediate in favorableness. These are situations in which (a)
the task is structured, but the leader is
disliked and must, therefore, be diplomatic; (b) the liked leader has an ambiguous, unstructured task and must,
therefore, draw upon the creativity
and cooperation of his members. Here
we obtain positive correlations between
LPC and group performance scores.
Where the task is highly structured and
the leader is well-liked, non-directive
behavior or permissive attitudes (such
as asking how the group ought to proceed with a missile count-down) is neither appropriate nor beneficial. Where
the situation is quite unfavorable, e.g.,
where the disliked chairman of a volunteer group faces an ambiguous task,
the leader might as well be autocratic
and directive since a positive, non-directive leadership style under these conditions might result in complete inactivity on the part of the group. This
model, thus, tends to shed some light
on the apparent inconsistencies in our

Leadership

Tk Conringt

own data as well as in data obtained by

other investigators.

TABLI
(ACs)
PAT-T

EMPIFUCAL TEST-S EXTENSION

OF THE MODEL
The basic hypothesis of the model suggests that the directive, controlling,
task oriented (low LPC) leader will be
most successful in group-task situations
which are either very favorable or else
very unfavorable for the leader. The
permissive, considerate, human relations oriented (high I-PC) leader will
perform best under conditions which
are intermediate in favorableness. This
hypothesis was tested by re-analyzing
data from previous studies as well as
by a major experiment specifically designed to test the model. Both are
briefly described below.
Re-analyses of Previous Studies
As we indicated before, there is reason
to believe that the relationship between
the leader and his members is the most
important of the three dimensions for
classifying group-task situations. The
problem of exercising leadership will be
a relatively easy one in group-task situations in which the leader is not only
liked by his crew and gets along well
with his group, but in which the task is
structured and the leader has a relatively powerful position. The situation
will be somewhat more difficult if the
leader under these circumstances has an
only moderately good relationship with
his group members, and it will be quite
difficult if the leader-member relations
are very poor, if the group members reject ot actively dislike the leader. Ordinarily this does not occur in laboratory
studies. It does happen, however, that
real-life groups strongly reject leaderssometimes to the point of sabotaging
the task. Since such a situation would
present a very difficult problem in

AC is most 1
AC is most i
AC is most 1
AC is not m
AC is not m
AC is not m
Table adaptr

leadership,
formance f
trolling lea
correlation
WC score
This result
bomber cre
the apptop
by new ana
Bomber
conducted I
ler, 1955) I
mance con
This is the
curacy of h
radar ptoce
sified on tl
between tl
his crew.
whether 01
mander ws
of the cr
commande
his keymer
(the radar I
The rest
sented in 1
correlation
fonnance :
having ver
group relat
itive in the

L?adership
data obtained by

Effectiveness

W.

vious Studies
Ire, there is reason
,ationship between
embers is the most
.ee dimensions for
k situations. The
: leadership will be
in group-task situleader is not only
gets along well
n which the task is
leader has a relaion. The situation
.ore difficult if the
rcumstances has an
d relationship with
and it will be quite
r-member relations
group members re:e the leader. Ordioccur in laboratory
3en, however, that
gly reject leadersjoint of sabotaging
I a situation would
fficult problem in

307

TABLE 2 c CORRELATIONS BETWEEN AIRCRAFT COMMANDERS

(ACs) ASo SCORE AND RADAR BOMB SCORES UNDER DIFFERENT
PATTERNS OF SOCIOMETRK CHOICES IN B-29 BOMBER CREWS

EXTENSION

of the model sugtive, controlling,

C) leader will be
up-task situations
I favorable or else
the leader. The
ite, h u m a n relaLPC) leader will
conditions which
tvorableness. This
d by re-analyzing
itudies as well as
nt specifically demodel. Both are

Id

The Contingency Model: A Theoq of Lxdership

AC is most preferred crew member and chooses keymen (K)

AC is most preferred crew member and is neutral to K
AC is most preferred crew member and does not choose K
AC is not most preferred crew member but chooses K
AC is not most preferred crew member and is neutral to K
AC is not most preferred crew member and does not choose K

RHO

-.81

10

-.14
.43
-.03
-.80
- .67

6
6
18
5
7

Table adapted from Fiedler (1955).

leadership, we would expect better performance from the task-oriented, controlling leader, and hence a negative
correlation between the leaders ASo or
LPC score and his groups performance.
rlhis result appeared in one study of
bomber crews for which we already had
the appropriate data, and it was tested
by new analyses in two other studies.
Bomber Crew Study. A study was
conducted on B-29 bomber crews (Fiedler, 1955) where the criterion of performance consisted of radar bomb scores.
This is the average circular error, or accuracy of hitting the target by means of
radar procedures. The crews were classified on the basis of their relationship
between the aircraft commander and
his crew. The crew: were ordered on
whether or not (a) the aircraft commander was the most chosen member
of the crew, and (b) the aircraft
commander sociometrically endorsed
his keymen on his radar bombing team
(the radar observer and navigator).
The results of this analysis are presented in Table 2. As can be seen, the
correlations between ASo and crew performance are highly negative in crews
having very good and very poor leadergroup relations, but they tend to be pos
itive in the intermediate range.

Anti-aircraft Art&y Crews. A second set of data came from a study of

anti-aircraft artillery crews (Hutchins
and Fiedler, 1960). Here the criterion
of crew performance consisted of scores
indicating the location and aquisition of unidentified aircraft. These
crews were subdivided on the basis of
leader-crew relations by separately correlating the leaders LPC score with
group performance (a) for the ten crews
which most highly chose their crew
commander, (b) the ten which were in
the intermediate range, and (c) the ten
crews which gave the least favorable sociometric choices to their leader. These
data are presented in Table 3.
Consumer Cooperative Carpanies. Finally we reanalyzed data from a study
of 31 consumer cooperatives (Godfrey,
Fiedier and Hall, 1959) in which the
criterion of performance consisted of
the per cent of company net income
over a three-year period. The companies were subdivided into those in
which the general manager was sociometrically chosen (a) by his board of directors as well as by his staff of assistant
managers, (b) those in which the general manager was chosen by his board
but not his staff, or (c) by his staff but
not his board, and (d) the companies in

Tht?Conangenc
Leadmhip

TABLE 3 . CORRELATIONS BETWEEN LEADER LPC SCORES AND

ANTI-AIRCm ARTILLERY CREW PERFORMANCE

Most highly chosen crew commanders

Middle range in sociometric choices
Lowest chosen crew commanders

RHO

-.34
.49
-.42

10

10
10

TABLE 4 . CORRELATIONS BETWEEN GENERAL MANAGERS ASo

SCORE AND COMPANY NET INCOME

Gen. mgr. is mostly chosen by board and staff (ASo perf.)

Gen. mgr. is chosen by board, but rejected by staff
Gen. mgr. is rejected by board. but chosen by staff
Gen. mgr. is rejected by board and staff

which the general manager was rejected, or not chosen, by both board of
directors and staff. (Table 4.)
As these tables, and Figure 3 show,
the task-oriented, managing, low LFC
leaders performed best under very favorable and under very unfavorable situations, while the permissive, considerate
leaders performed best under conditions
intermediate in favorableness. These
data, therefore, clearly support the hypothesis derived from the model.

I
1
!

Experimental Test of the

Contingency Made1
hi cooperation with the Belgian Naval
Forces we recently conducted a major
study which served in part as a specific
test of the model. Only aspects immediately relevant to the test are here described. The investigation was conducted in Belgium where the French
and Dutch speaking (or Flemish) sectors
of the country have been involved in a
long standing and frequently acrimonious dispute. This conflict centers about

FIGC
SCORES
OF LEAI:
CREU

RHO

-.67
.20
.26
-.75

10

6
6
7

the use of language, but it also involves

a host of other cultural factors which
differentiate the 60 per cent Flemish
and 40 per cent French speaking population groups in Wallonie and Brussels. This linguistic problem which is
rooted in the beginning of Belgiums national history, has in recent years been
the cause of continuous public controversy, frequent protest meetings, and
occasional riots.
The linguistic problem is of particular interest here since a group, consisting of members whose mother tongue,
culture, and attitudes differ, will clearly
present a more difficult problem in leadership than a group whose members
share the same language and culture.
We were thus able to test the major hy
pothesis of the model as well as to extend the research by investigating the
type of leadership which linguistically
and culturally heterogeneous groups require.
Design. The experiment was conducted at the naval training center at

1.00

30 .60 .40 aa0 -.20-40 -

ou
3iati
ZE
zg
<
$0)
$2
ifi:
PI0
6e
g m
F
s -60 -.80-1.ocl

Ste. Croix-!
petty oficei
been select
on the basi
obtained L
and languag

This invest&
collaboration
his &dents Y
Research Fell
1963-1964. permission ot
Chief of Staf
carried out a:
Navale, Ste.
to express hi:
appreciation
Captain V. \

Leadership
ZORES AND
.NCE
N
10
10
10

Tk Crmtingeruy Model: A Theory of -ship Effectiwss

309

FIGURE 3 l CORRELATIONS BETWEEN LEADER LPC OR ASo

SCORES AND GROUP PERFORMANCE UNDER THREE CONDITIONS
OF LEADER ACCEPTANCE BY THE GROUP IN STUDIES OF BOMBER
CREWS, AN-II-AIRCRAFT ARTILLERY CREWS AND CONSUMER
COOPERATIVES.
1.00

JAGERS ASo
U-IO

-.67
.20
.26
-.75

10
6
6
7

iut it also involves

Ural factors which
per cent Flemish
ch speaking popuallonie and Brusproblem which is
ng of Belgiums narecent years been
ous public controzst meetings, and
blem is of particue a group, consistse mother tongue,
j differ, will clearly
.It problem in lead) whose members
:uage and culture.
test the major hy:I as well as to exJ investigating the
rhich linguistically
lgeneous groups re,eriment w a s contraining center at

-l.ool

Leader sociometrically
highly chosen

Leader neither chosen

nor rejected

Ste. Croix-Bruges. It utilized 48 career

petty officers and 240 recruits who had
been selected from a pool of 546 men
on the basis of a pre-test in which we
obtained WC, intelligence, attitude,
and language comprehension scores.

This investigation was conducted in

collaboration with Dr. J. M. Nuttin (Jr.) and
his students while the author was Ford Faculty
Research Fellow at the University of Louvain,
1963-1964. The experiment, undertaken with
permission of Commodore L. Petitjean. then
Chief of Staff of the Belgian Naval Forces, was
carried out at the Centre de Formation
Navale. Ste. Croix-Bruges. The writer wishes
to express his especial gratitude and
appreciation to the commandant of the center,
Captain V. Van Laethem, who not only made

Leader sociometrically
rejected

The experiment was specifically designed to incorporate the three major

group classification dimensions shown
on Figure 1, namely, leader-member
relations, position power, and task
structure. It also added the additional

the personnel and the facilities of the center

available to us, but whose active participation
in the planning and the execution of the
project made this study possible. We are also
most grateful to Dr. U. Bouvier, Director of
the Center for Social Studies, Ministry of
Defense, to Capt. W. Cafferata. USN, the
senior U.S. Naval representative of the
Military Assistance and Advisory Group,
Brussels, and to Cmdr. J. Robison, U.S. Naval
Attache in Brussels, who provided liaison and
guidance.

Tk confingc

320

!
i
.

dimension of group homogeneity vs.

heterogeneity. Specifically, 48 groups
had leaders with high position power
(petty officers) while 48 had leaders
with low position power (recruits); 48
groups began with the unstructured
task, while the other 48 groups began
with two structured tasks; 48 groups
were homogeneous, consisting of three
French or three Dutch speaking men,
while the other 48 groups were heterogeneous, consisting of a French speaking leader and two Flemish members, or
a Dutch speaking, Flemish leader and,
two French speaking members. The
_ quality of the leader-member relations
was measured as in our previous studies
by means of a group atmosphere scale
which the leader completed after each
task session.
Groug Performance Criterion. Two essentially identical structured tasks were
administrated. Each lasted 25 minutes
and required the groups to find the
shortest route for a ship which, given
certain fuel capacity and required ports
of call, had to make a round trip calling
at respectively ten or twelve ports. The
tasks were objectively scored on the basis of sea miles required for the trip. Appropriate corrections and penalties were
assigned for errors.
The unstructured task required the
groups to compose a letter to young men
of 16 and 17 years, urging them to
choose the Belgian Navy as a career.
The letter was to be approximately 200
words in length and had to be completed in 35 minutes. Each of the letters, depending upon the language in
which it was written, was then rated by
Dutch or by French speaking judges on
style and use of language,. as well as interest value, originality, and persuasiveness. Estimated reliability was .92 and
.86 for Dutch and French speaking
judges, respectively.
It should be noted in this connection

that the task of writing a letter is not as

unstructured as might have been desirable for this experiment. The form of
any letter of this type is fairly standardized, and its content was, of course,
suggested by the instructions. The navy officers with whom we consulted
throughout the study considered it unwise, however, to give a highly unstructured task, such as writing a fable or
proposing a new policy, since tasks of
this nature were likely to threaten the
men and to cause resentment and poor
cooperation. High and low task-structure is, thereforr, less well differentiated
in this study than it has been in previous investigations.
Results. The contingency model spec
i&s that the controlling, managing, low
L.EC leaders will be most effective either
in very favorable or else in relatively unfavorable group-task situations, while the
permissive, considerate, high LPC leaders
will be mote effective in situations intermediate in difficulty.
The basic test of the hypothesis requires, therefore, that we order the
group-task situations, represented in
this experiment, in terms of the difflculty which they are likely to present for
the leader. Since there are 16 cells in
the de&n, the Size of the sample within each cell (namely 6 groups) is,
of course, extremely small. However,
where the conditions are reasonably
replicated by other cells, the relationship can be estimated from the median
rank-order correlations.
The hypothesis can be tested most
readily with correlations of leader LPC
and group performance in homogeneous
groups on the more reliably storable second structured task. These conditions
approximate most closely those represented on Figure 3, on bomber and antiaircraft crews and consumer cooperatives. We have here made the fairly
obvious assumption that the p~wirful

leader or th
accepted fat
uation thar
those who E
and tense. I
by two cell:
there were t
half the gr
structured
unsmcturec
task situatic
for the lead
ing results:

High group
atmospher
high posit!
power
High group

aanospher
low positic
I.otv group

aanospher
high pit
power
low p&tic
These i
in size am
which the
leaders are
able and u
tions: the I
high LPC 1
the intermc
Extendil
heterogene
make a m
tions for H
task dimen
16 cells x
ordered or
here assigr
favorable
sions, i.e.,

l.t?&TShi@
ng a letter is not as
It have been desirnent. The form of
e is fairly standardnt was, of course,
tructions. The nalorn we consulted
y considered it unJe a highfy unstrucwriting a fable or
Jicy, since tasks of
ely to threaten the
:sentment and poor
and low task-struc;s well differentiated
it has been in pre:ingency model spec
iling, managing, low
most effective either
else in relatively unsituations, while the
lte, high Lpc leaders
e in situations interf the hypothesis rethat we order the
ns, represented in
1 terms of the diffi3 likely to present for
here are 16 cells in
of the sample withnely 6 groups) is,
4y small. However,
Lens are reasonably
; cells, the relationted from the median
ions.
can be tested most
ations of leader LPC
mce in homogeneous
reliably storable seck. These conditions
closely those repreon bomber and antic o n s u m e r cooperaLere made the fairly
n that the powerful

Tk Contingency Model: A Theory of Leadership Ejjectiuenerr

leader or the leader who feels liked and
accepted faces an easier group-task situation than low ranking leaders and
those who see the groups as unpleasant
and tense. Each situation is represented
by two cells of six groups, each. Since
there were two orders of presentationhalf the groups worked first on the
structured task, the other half on the
unstructured task, arranging the group
task situations in order of favor-ableness
for the leader then gives us the following results:
Order 1 Order 2

High group
atmosphere and
high position
power
High group
atmosphere and
low position power

-.77

-.77

+ .60

+.50

+.16

+.01

atmosphere and
low position power . - .16

-.43

LQW group

atmosphere and
high position
power
L4-m WUP

These are, of Course, the trends

in size and magnitude of correlations
which the model predicts. Low Z-PC
leaders are again most effective in favorable and unfavorable group-task situations: the more permissive, considerate
high UC leaders were more effective in
the intermediate situations.
Extending the model to include
heterogeneous groups requires that we
make a number of additional assumptions for weighting each of the grouptask dimensions so that all 48 cells (i.e.,
16 cells x 3 tasks) can be reasonably
ordered on the same scale. We have
here assigned equal weights of 3 to the
favorable poles of the major dimensions, i.e., to homogeneity, high group

311

atmosphere, and high position power. A

weight of one was assigned to the first
structured task, and a weight of two to
the second structured task on the assumption that the structured task makes
the group-task situation somewhat more
favorable than the unstructured task,
and that the practice and learning effect
inherent in performing a second, practically identical task, will make the
group-task situation still more favorable
for the leader. Finally, a weight of one
was given to the second presentation,
that is, the group task which occurred
toward the end of the session, on the
assumption that the leader by that time
had gotten to know his group members
and had learned to work with them
more effectively, thus again increasing
the favorableness of his group-task situation to a certain extent.
The resulting weighting system leads
to a scale from 12 to 0 points, with 12
as the most favorable pole. If we now
plot the median correlation coefficients
of the 48 group-task situations against
the scale indicating the favorableness of
the situation for the leader, we obtain
the curve presented on Figure 4.
As can be seen, we again obtain a
curvilinear relationship which resembles that shown on Figure 2. Heterogeneous groups with low position power
and/or poor leader-member relations fall
below point 6 on the scale, and thus
tend to perform better with controlling,
directive, low LPC leaders. Only under
otherwise very favorable conditions do
heterogeneous groups perform better
with permissive, considerate high LPC
leaders, that is, in group-task situations
characterized by high group atmosphere
as well as high position power, four of
the six correlations (66%) are positive,
while only five of eighteen (28%) are
positive in the less favorable group-task
situations.
It is interesting to note that the curve

FIGURE 4 l MEDIAN CORRELATIONS BETWEEN LEADER LCP AND GROUP PERFORMANCE SCORES PL.OlTED
AGAINST FAVORABLENESS-FOR-LEADER SCALE IN THE BELGIAN NAVY STUDY.
Code for *digit numbers figure indicating the type of group invofved
COlllpOSitkXl
HomogelleOJS
Homogeneous
Heterogeneous
Heterogeneous

Position Power

HighGroup Almos.

LowGroup Atmos.

Task

1 s1 Pres.
1

Slrucfured I
Structured II
Unstructured

High
:
3
4

k$
LOW

2nd Pres.
:
6

ii

33
22

66

44

24

72

23

E
44
66

.-60

65

63
21
43

-.W

73
-1.00

I
I
12
11
Favorable
for
leader

I
10

I
9

I
6
Moderately
unfavorable

I
7

1
6

I
5
Very
unlavorable

I
4

45
3

I
1

0
Extremely
unfavorable
for leader

Tk Contingency Model: A Theory of Leadership Effhctiwness

is rather flat and characterized by relatively low negative correlations as we go

toward the very unfavorable end of the
scale. This result supports Meuweses
(1964) recent study which showed that
correlations between leader LPC as
well as between leader intelligence and
group performance tend to become attenuated under conditions of relative
stress. These findings suggest that the
leaders ability to influence and control
the group decreases beyond a certain
point of stress and difficulty in the
group-task situation.
DISCUSSION
The contingency model seeks to reconcile results which up to now had to be
considered inconsistent and difficult to
understand. We have here attempted to
develop a theoretical framework which
can provide guidance for further research. While the model will undoubtedly undergo modifications and elaboration as data become available, it
provides an additional step toward a
better understanding of leadership processes required in different situations.
We have here tried to specify exactly
the type of leadership which different
group task-situations require.
The model has a number of important implications for selection and
training, as well as for the placement of
leaders and organizational strategy. Our
research suggests, first of all, that we
can utilize a very broad spectrum of individuals for positions of leadership.
The problem becomes one of placement
and training rather than of selection
since both the permissive, democratic,
human-relations oriented, and the managing, autocratic, task-oriented leader
can be effectively utilized. Leaders can be
trained to recognize their own style of
leadership as well as the conditions which
are most compatible with their style.

3l3

The model also points to a variety of

administrative and supervisory strategies which the organization can adopt
to fit the group-task situation to the
needs of the leader. Tasks can, after all,
be structured to a greater or lesser extent by giving very specific and detailed, or vague and general instructions; the position power of the group
leader can be increased or decreased and
even the congeniality of a group, and its
acceptance of the leader can be affected
by appropriate administration action,
such as for instance increasing or decreasing the groups homogeneity.
The model also throws new light on
phenomena which were rather difficult
to fit into our usual ideas about measurement in social psychology. Why, for
example, should groups differ so markedly in their performance on nearly parallel tasks? The model-and our datashow that the situation becomes easier
for the leader as the group moves from
the novel to the already known group
task situations. The leaders who excel
under relatively novel and therefore
more difficult conditions are not necessarily .those who excel under those
which are more routine, or better
known and therefore more favorable.
Likewise, we find that different types of
task structure require different types of
leader behavior. Thus, in a research
projects early phases the project director tends to be democratic and permissive; everyone is urged to contribute to
the plan and to criticize all aspects of
the design. This situation changes radically in the more structured phase when
the research design is frozen and the
experiment is underway. Here the research director tends to become managing, controlling, and highly autocratic and woe betide the assistant who
attempts to be creative in giving instructions to subjects, or in his timing
of tests. A similar situation is often

--.
,..*.

. . -

Tk coluingency Mofle

314
found in business organizations where
the routine operation tends to be well
structured and calls for a managing, directive leadership. The situation becomes suddenly unstructured when a
crisis occurs. Under these conditions
the number of discussions, meetings,
and conferences increases sharply so as
to give everyone an opportunity to express his views.
At best, this model is of course only
a partial theory of leadership. The leaders intellectual and task-relevant abilities, and the members skills and motivation, all play a role in affecting the
groups performance. It is to be hoped
that these other important aspects of
group interaction can be incorporated
into the model in the not too distant
future.
REFERENCES
Bass, A. R., Fiedler, E E., and Krueger, S.
Personality correlates of assumed similarity
(ASo) and related scores. Urbana, 111.:
Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory,
University of Illinois, 1964.
Bass, B. M. Leadership psychology and organizational behavior. New York: Harper Brothers,
1960.
Browne, C. G., and Cohn, T. S. (Eds.) The
study of leadership. Danville. Illinois. The
Interstate Printers and Publishers, 1958.
Cleven, W. A., and Fiedler. E E. Interpersonal perceptions of open hearth foremen
and steel production. J. appl. Psychol. 1956.
40. 312-314.
Cronbach, J. J., and Gleser, Goldene C. Assessing similarity between profiles. Psych&
Bull., 1953, 50, 45-73.
Fiedler, E E. Assumed similarity measures as
predictors of team effectiveness. J. &norm.

sot. Psychol., 1954, 49, 381-388.

Fiedler, F. E. Leader attitudes, group climate,

and group creativity. J. &norm. sot. Psychef., 1962,64. 308-318.

Fiedler, F. E. A contingency model of leadert

:

ship effectiveness. In L. Berkowtir (Ed.)

Advances in experimental social psychology.
New York: Academic Press, 1964. Vol. 1.

Fiedler, E E., and Meuwese, W. A. T. The

leaders contribution to performance in cohesive and uncohesive groups. J. &norm.
sot. PsychoL, 1963, 67, 83-87.
Fiedier, E E., Meuwese. W. A. T., and Gonk,
Sophie. Performance of laboratory tasks requiring group creativity. Aa Psychubgica,
1961, 18, 100-119.
French, J. R. P., Jr. A formal theory of social
power. PsychoL Rew, 1956, 63, 181-194.
Gibb, C. A. Leadership in G. Lindzey (Ed.)
Handbook of socid psychology, Vol. II, Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954.
Godfrey, Eleanor P., Fiedler, E E., and Hall.
D. M. Boards, rmxnagement, and cornpony
success. Danville, Illinois: Interstate Printers and Publishers, 1959.
Hare, A. P. Handbook of small group research.
New York: Free Press, 1962.
Hawkins, C. A study of factors mediating a relationship between leader rating behavior
and group productivity. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertion, University of Minnesota, 1962.
Hutchins, E. B.. and Fiedler, F. E. Task-oriented and quasi-therapeutic role functions
of the leader in small military groups. Sociomctry. 1960, 23, 293-406.
Julian, J. W., and McGrath, J. E. The influence of leader and member behavior on the
adjustment and task effectiveness of negotiation groups. Urbana, Ill.: Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, University of IIlinois, 1963.
McGrath, J. E. A summary of small group research studies. Arlington, Va.: Human Sciences Research inc., 1962 (Litho.).
Mann, R. D. A review of the relationship between personality and performance in small
groups. Psychol. Bull., 1959. 56. 241-270.
Meuwese, W. A. T. The effect of the leaders
ability and interpersonal attitudes on group
creativity under varying conditions of
stress. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Amsterdam, 1964.
Morris, C. G., and Fiedler, E E. Application
of a new system of interaction analysis to
be relationships between leader attitudes
and behavior in problem solving groups.
Urbana, III.: Group Effectiveness Research
Laboratory, University of Illinois, 1964.
Osgood, C. A., Suci, G. A., and Tannenbaum, R H. The
of metin&
Urbana, III.: University of Illinois PEW
1957.

rneaumt

Shaw, M. E. Annual Te
Gainesville, Florida:
1962 (Mimeo.).
Stogdilf, R. Personal fat
leadership: a survey
RychoL, 1948, 25, :

A. T. The
xmance in co4. J. abnorm.
i7.
T., and Oonk,
ratory tasks rea Psychologiccr,
.eory of social
63, 181-194.
Lindtey (Ed. 1
Vol. 11, Camley, 1954.

I,

E., and Hall,

and company
nterstate Print-

soup research.
mediating a reating behavior
published Ph.D.
innesota, 1962.
:. E. Task-ori: role functions
xy.groups. SO-

6.

E. The influbehavior on the

veness of negotiGroup EffectiveUniversity of IIsmall group reVa.: Human Sci(Litho.).
relationship beormance in small

9. 56. 241-270.

t of the leaders
tttitudes on group
onditions of
ral dissertation,

1964.

1 E. Application
:tion analysis to
leader attitudes
solving groups.
tiveness Research
Illinois, 1964.
and Tannenmm of meaning.
>f Illinois Press,