Question

Review Feilder's contingency model, located in chapter 10 of your textbook, Organization Behavior in Health Care. Discuss the assumption in the model that leadership is "fixed" and how this would impact a health care environment. Is this model the most appropriate for a health care environment? Why? Provide an example of how you have seen this model used. Review Feilder's contingency model, located in chapter 10 of your textbook, Organization Behavior in Health Care. Discuss the assumption in the model that leadership is "fixed" and how this would impact a health care environment. Is this model the most appropriate for a health care environment? Why? Provide an example of how you have seen this model used.

Answer 1

Understanding the Model

The Fiedler Contingency Model was created in the mid-1960s by Fred Fiedler, a scientist who studied the personality and characteristics of leaders.

The model states that there is no one best style of leadership. Instead, a leader's effectiveness is based on the situation. This is the result of two factors – "leadership style" and "situational favorableness" (later called "situational control").

Leadership Style

Identifying leadership style is the first step in using the model. Fiedler believed that leadership style is fixed, and it can be measured using a scale he developed called Least-Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) Scale (see Figure 1).

The scale asks you to think about the person who you've least enjoyed working with. This can be a person who you've worked with in your job, or in education or training.

You then rate how you feel about this person for each factor, and add up your scores. If your total score is high, you're likely to be a relationship-orientated leader. If your total score is low, you're more likely to be task-orientated leader.

The model says that task-oriented leaders usually view their LPCs more negatively, resulting in a lower score. Fiedler called these low LPC-leaders. He said that low LPCs are very effective at completing tasks. They're quick to organize a group to get tasks and projects done. Relationship-building is a low priority.

However, relationship-oriented leaders usually view their LPCs more positively, giving them a higher score. These are high-LPC leaders. High LPCs focus more on personal connections, and they're good at avoiding and managing conflict. They're better able to make complex decisions.

Situational Favorableness

Next, you determine the "situational favorableness" of your particular situation. This depends on three distinct factors:

• Leader-Member Relations – This is the level of trust and confidence that your team has in you. A leader who is more trusted and has more influence with the group is in a more favorable situation than a leader who is not trusted.
• Task Structure – This refers to the type of task you're doing: clear and structured, or vague and unstructured. Unstructured tasks, or tasks where the team and leader have little knowledge of how to achieve them, are viewed unfavorably.
• Leader's Position Power – This is the amount of power you have to direct the group, and provide reward or punishment. The more power you have, the more favorable your situation. Fiedler identifies power as being either strong or weak.

Applying the Fiedler Contingency Model

Step 1: Identify your leadership style

Think about the person who you've least enjoyed working with, either now or in the past.

Step 2: Identify your situation

Answer the questions:

• Are leader-member relations good or poor?
• Is the task you're doing structured, or is it more unstructured, or do you have little experience of solving similar problems?
• Do you have strong or weak power over your team?

• Step 3: Determine the most effective leadership style

  Figure 2 shows a breakdown of all of the factors we've covered: Leader-Member Relations, Task Structure, and Leader's Position Power. The final column identifies the type of leader that Fiedler believed would be most effective in each situation.

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.

I wouldn't say that this is the best model or most appropriate model for health care environment but yes it is definitely a great model for the following reasons:

According to Fiedler's contingency model, there is not only one type of successful leadership style, but each leader type can thrive in the right group setting. The model provides a number of factors management can modify to improve the efficiency of the group. For instance, according to Fiedler's theory, an impersonal but task-oriented leader can be effective in a group as long as the group is highly structured and has clearly defined tasks.

Leader Identification

Fiedler's model gives organizations a quick method to identify the best potential leaders for a particular group. The theory includes a least preferred coworker scale, which helps management identify the human relations orientation and the task orientation of possible leaders. Leaders with a task orientation are best suited for groups in which they have a high level of control and supervise clearly defined tasks. On the other hand, leaders with a relationship orientation can use their interpersonal skills to get the job done and can deal with complex issues when making decisions.

Flexibility

This theory is designed as a contingency model and does not claim to describe all possible situations. It is precisely because the model only purports to provide ballpark results that it is flexible enough to adapt to a wide variety of groups, leaders and group-leader relationships. For instance, if a group has a leader with low human relations skills, Fiedler's model still gives management the option of creating an effective group by providing clearly defined tasks and increasing the ability of the leader to provide rewards or punishment to subordinates.