1. Quiz
News
Fiedler’s Contingency Theory
Path Goal Theory
Team discussion of case example

2. Fiedler’s Contingency Theory of Leadership: Situational Factors
Task structure
Goal clarity
Path simplicity/multiplicity
Solution singularity/multiplicity
Solution verifiability
Position power
Appointed by authority
Direct/recommend action
Affect promotion/demotion, hire/fire
Leader expertise/knowledge
Conduct performance evaluation
Formal title
Leader-member relations
Co-worker cooperation/conflict
Reliability, trustworthiness
Harmonious climate
Leader-worker cooperation/conflict
Initiative by workers
Fred E. Fiedler

3. Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale
Pleasant
Friendly
Rejecting
Tense
Distant
Cold
Supportive
Boring
Quarrelsome
Gloomy
Open
Backbiting
Untrustworthy
Considerate
Nasty
Agreeable
Insincere
Kind
Unpleasant
Unfriendly
Accepting
Relaxed
Close
Warm
Hostile
Interesting
Harmonious
Cheerful
Guarded
Loyal
Trustworthy
Inconsiderate
Nice
Disagreeable
Sincere
Unkind
Scoring
>72 Relationship
65-71 Mixed
<64 Task

4. What are the factors that determine fit between style & situation?
Relationship-oriented
Task-oriented
Task-oriented

5. Since the quality of leader-member relationships is essential to a well-functioning organization, if you had a leader who needed to improve such relations, what would you recommend?

6. STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN THE SITUATION
FIEDLER'S LEADERSHIP CONTINGENCY MODEL:
STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN THE SITUATION
To Improve Leader-Member Relations:
Clearly understand group problems and try to alleviate them.
Become more available to workers (e.g. consultation, feedback).
Provide accurate information on the organization so their confidence and trust is earned.
Hold feedback (and gripe) sessions.
Hold regular meetings to keep people more informed and involved.
Promote brown bag lunches, socials, leisure activities.
Provide celebrations for task completion.
Accept assignments to work with more difficult individuals ("problem people," motivation, etc.)
Organize off-work activities such as picnics, softball, excursions.
Request particular individuals to work on projects.
Suggest or effect transfers in/out of unit.
Raise morale by obtaining positive outcomes for subordinates (e.g. special bonuses, time off, attractive jokes, etc.)

7. In other cases, the task is unclear or too rigid and constraints mature workers. What recommendations could you make to increase or decrease structure?

8. Changes to Task Structure
To Increase Task Structure:
Request more structured tasks or more detailed instructions.
Request more tasks; learn all you can through training and experience about the task so you can develop more detailed plans.
Break a task into smaller subtasks.
Volunteer for structured tasks; avoid unstructured ones.
Develop procedures, guidelines, SOP, diagrams, outlines, descriptions of previous jobs.
Keep records, systematic observations, note patterns, cycles.
To Reduce Task Structure:
Request new, unusual problems with permission to figure out how to do solve them.
Involve the group in problem solving and decision making on the task or problems.
Leave the task in vague form.
Increase the time horizon (which usually increases ambiguity or complexity).
Volunteer for unstructured tasks and avoid structured ones.
Involve people with different viewpoints.
Work on tasks that have path multiplicity (multiple ways of approaching or solving them).

9. Finally, if a new leader had little influence due to low position power, what would you recommend to improve such power:

10. Structural changes to position power
To Decrease Position Power:
Be one of the gang, socialize, joke, self disclosure, play down trappings and rank.
Share decision making by involving others in planning.
Give others access to your boss.
Let information from the organization quickly reach all group members.
Delegate and distribute power.
Promote team and individual development and expertise.
To Increase Position Power:
Demonstrate authority by exercising full authorized powers.
Quickly become an expert.
Evaluate subordinates' performance.
No not depend on others to assert yourself in informing, planning, and organizing.
Arrange for information to be channeled through you.
Use the cultural trappings of power (desk, secretary, wardrobe, etc.)

11. Evaluation of Fiedler’s Contingency Model
Weaknesses
Difficult to understand and use LPC test
Questionable whether LPC measures T/R, motivation, or cognitive complexity
LPC measure is unstable, with low validity & reliability coefficients
Other important contingencies are left out
Fiedler believed you had to change the situation and not style because style was not changeable– he has moderated– all factors can change
None of correlations between LPC and group performance were statistically significant, although 34 of 45 groups tested (76%) were in the predicted direction
Wide variations in the specification of situational favorableness
Fiedler proposed that L-MR, TS, & PP should be on 4:2:1 ratio, but no experimental evidence to support this

12. Strengths
Considers interaction of different styles and different contingencies
Emphasizes change or “engineering” the situation and suggests specifics
Recognizes changing/dynamic nature of situations
Recognizes leader success is a function of style-situation match
Unique idea on combination of factors producing favorability
Conclusion
OK for simple situations (clear extreme & middle)
Important starting point for learning about and experimenting with contingencies, but should consider other variables present
Don’t use LPC scale
Emphasize leader change as much as situational change

13. Robert House & Martin Evans
Path-Goal Theory of
Robert House & Martin Evans
Key question: How to choose the best path to reach the goal (based on expectancy theory of motivation)
Follower characteristics: locus of control & self efficacy
Environmental characteristics: situational demands such as task structure, level of authority, & work group
Vary leadership style depending on contingencies
Ensure subordinate goals are consistent with organizational goals
Enhance work satisfaction & productivity
How would you create a model out of these building blocks?

14. Path-Goal Theory
In the early 1970’s House & Evans proposed path-goal theory
Specifies what a leader should do to achieve high productivity & satisfaction
This is done by clarifying the path to the work/performance goal
The leadership style should consider needs of the worker and task demands, and match efforts accordingly
It identifies four worker needs and corresponding leader styles

16. Sample Locus of Control Scale Items

17. Subordinate Self-Perception factors in Path-Goal
Outcomes are influences by luck, fate, chance, or powerful others
Outcomes are influenced by oneself, motivation, skill and effort

18. Subordinate Self-Efficacy & Path-Goal

19. Study showing variance accounted for (R2) by self-efficacy in remote workers in virtual organizations
Staples, D. S., Hulland, J. S., & Higgins, C. A. (1998). A Self-Efficacy Theory Explanation for the Management of Remote Workers in Virtual Organizations. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3(4),

20. You prefer what you are…

21. Team Task
Identify a leadership situation that was working well or poorly. Use Path-Goal Theory to:
Describe it using terms of that theory
Explain why the leadership did or did not work well
Make recommendations for changes in the leader and/or situation according to the theory