Leading

For instance, imagine that you've just started working at a new

company, replacing a much-loved leader who recently retired. You're
leading a team who views you with distrust (so your Leader-Member
Relations are poor). The task you're all doing together is well defined
(structured), and your position of power is high because you're the boss,
and you're able to offer reward or punishment to the group.

The most effective leader in this situation would be high LPC – that is, a
leader who can focus on building relationships first.

Or, imagine that you're leading a team who likes and respects you (so
your Leader-Member relations are good). The project you're working on
together is highly creative (unstructured) and your position of power is
high since, again, you're in a management position of strength. In this
situation, a task-focused leadership style would be most effective.

Criticisms of the Model

There are some criticisms of the Fiedler Contingency Model. One of the
biggest is lack of flexibility. Fiedler believed that because our natural
leadership style is fixed, the most effective way to handle situations is to
change the leader. He didn't allow for flexibility in leaders.

For instance, if a low-LPC leader is in charge of a group with good

relations and doing unstructured tasks, and she has a weak position
(the fourth situation), then, according to the model, the best solution is
to replace her with a high-LPC leader – instead of asking her to use a
different leadership style.

There is also an issue with the Least-Preferred Co-Worker Scale – if

you fall near the middle of the scoring range, then it could be unclear
which style of leader you are.

There have also been several published criticisms of the Fiedler

Contingency Model. One of the most cited is "The Contingency Model:
Criticisms and Suggestions," published in the Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 13, No. 3. The authors say that, even under the best
circumstances, the LPC scale only has about a 50 percent reliable
variance. This means that, according to their criticism, the LPC scale
may not be a reliable measure of leadership capability.

It's also perfectly possible that your least preferred co-worker is a

genuinely confused, unpleasant or evil person (they do exist) - if you are
unfortunate enough to have encountered such a person just once in
your career, then you might always be categorized as a low-LPC leader,
however people-oriented you actually are.