Fiedler's Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) Theory:Fixing a failed state with task-focused leadership

Author: Iloka Benneth Chiemelie
Published: 31 January 2019

Abstract

Over the years, researchers have attempted to reference leadership in actual organizational as it related to why leaders behave the way they do, and how their actions can either be enhanced or mitigated for better performance. In view of this understanding, this research paper looks at the Fiedler's Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) Theory, in terms of how task-focused leadership can be used to fix a failed state. From the study, it was pointed out that task-focused leaders do not need extrinsic rewards are they are internally motivated to deliver successful tasks. Thus, in a state, if they leaders are task-focused, they will keep all relationship goals aside and focus on transforming the failed state into a valuable one.

Introduction

The absences of consensus in definition amongst researchers have plagued leadership theories. Over the years, numerous theories have emerged about leadership and it can even be stated that there are as many theories on leadership as there are leaders. As noted by House and Aditya (1997), it can be stated that almost all the theories of leadership, and around 98% of the empirical evidence presently available, are American in nature: individualistic instead of collective, stressing on the responsibility of followers instead of rights, taking the position of hedonism instead of commitment to altruistic motivation or duty, adopting the assumption of democratic value orientation and centrality of work, placing emphasis on rationalism instead of religion, asceticism, or superstition.

Thus, it is suggested in the above discussions that past leaders have been bias on the outlook of the developed world; which imply that it is important to execute more research from the views of a developing economy in order to gain better understanding of the phenomenon in question.

Over the years, numerous leadership approaches have emerged. The major theories that have been identified include: the Great Man, skill, traits, contingency, behavior, implicit leadership, charismatic, servant, leader-member exchange, transformational, transactional, distributed, entrepreneurial, and authentic leadership. Out of these theories, the least developed in terms of theories and research is the entrepreneurial leadership. In this paper, a review of the Fiedler’s Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) theory is presented together with how task-focused leadership can help in fixing a failed state.  

Fiedler's Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) Theory

This leadership model have been applied in numerous researches and appealed to many research, of which, Fiedler is the most prominent, who proposed the contingency theory in the late 1960s. In accordance with the theory, Fiedler’s (1978) did suggest that the effectiveness of leadership depends on the extent to which the leader’s personality is aligned with the context or situation. Fiedler proposed the Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) Scale, which can be used for measuring the personality of a leader to either be task-motivated or relationship-motivated. It was suggested by Fiedler (1978) situational favorableness can be a product of task structure, leader-member relations and position power. That is to say, a situation is considered highly favorable if there exists a good relationship between the leader and subordinates, a precisely defined structure, and if the leader has strong position of power. From a different view, a situation is considered to be least favorable in cases where the leader-member relationships are poor, the tasks are unstructured and the position power of leaders is weak.

In accordance with Nahavandi (2006), it is believed by Fiedler that effectiveness of a given leadership is determined by the ability of the leader to create a balance between leadership situation and leadership style, and the effectiveness of the leader does depend on the leadership style matching the situation. The author further explained that the LPC scale is used to identify a leader’s style and the extent to which relationship or tasks formed the basis of the style, which does form the priority of the leader and objectives towards accomplishing a given tasks or sustaining a relationship. The basic promise of this model is still whether the leadership style of a leader is changed in relation to a situation, with the model focusing on the need for the leader to learn how to understand and manage situations in the course of their leadership. As a result of the premise, the models still remain controversial irrespective of recent studies that have tried to validate it.

As a result of the shortcomings of research findings on leader effectiveness and behavior, scholar have moved towards the development of contingency theory with the aim of providing redress to the weaknesses associated with behavioral theory. It is proposed in the contingency theory that there is no optimum leadership style. That is to say, effective leaders adopt varied styles in line with the contingency circumstances that surround them, and as such, a leadership style that is considered ideal for the past might not be viewed as the same in present situations.

The LPC Scale

Over the years, the composition of the LPC scale has changed. Initially, the scale was based on items that reference tasks and interpersonal relationships that exist within groups. Fiedler (1987) noted that LPC demands respondents to describe the coworker considered least preferred. In effective, the instruction actually defines the least preferred coworker as incompetent and ineffective on the job. As such, the main point from the variance will, thus, reside on personality elements that are not logical relevant for one to be considered a poor coworker and, as such, it does reflect aversive feelings that employees have towards the people they cannot work with. The latest version of the scale and it was adopted by Fiedler (1987) to comprise of eighteen items. The scale has eight-point bi-polar items as:

1.      Pleasant – unpleasant

2.      Friendly – unfriendly

3.      Rejecting – accepting

4.      Tense – relaxed

5.      Distant – close

6.      Cold – warm

7.      Supportive – hostile

8.      Boring – interesting

9.      Quarrelsome – harmonious

10.  Gloomy – cheerful

11.  Open – guarded

12.  Backbiting – loyal

13.  Untrustworthy – trustworthy

14.  Considerate – inconsiderate

15.  Nasty – nice

16.  Agreeable – disagreeable

17.  Insincere – sincere

18.  Kind – unkind

For this pole, the adjective pair of 8 represents positive while negative is represented by 1. In this latest version, it was recognized by Fiedler (1987) that leaders low on LPC are those that have score of 63 or lower; those with score of 64 to 72 are middle LPC leaders; and those with score of 73 or higher are high LPC leaders.

Five interpretations of the LPC Score

The validity of the LPC score has resulted in numerous misunderstanding over the years, creating 5 different meanings as discussed below.

Social distance

This is the first interpretation of the LPC score and it is presently known as the Assumed Similarity between Opposites. It was a generalized index obtained from how close people are psychologically (Fiedler, 1987). Subjects were found to have less assumed similarity between themselves and groups members they don’t like than between themselves and the group members they like. On a similar note, it was also discovered that people with high LPC scores easily conformed to social pressure and they were more close to other group members. In any case, Rice (1978) conducted a study that re-analyzed some of the studies performed to investigate how other people reacts to high and low LPC persons, and came up with the conclusion that there are inconsistencies in findings.

Task orientation vs. relations orientation 

The LPC score was interpreted by Fiedler (1987) to be a personal need in the social context. People that have high LPC were viewed to have strong need to achieve and sustain good interpersonal relationships; with those low on LPC score having strong need for success with tasks performed. The author discovered that leaders on high LPC are generally relationship oriented, and they also gain satisfaction and self-esteem from developed quality interpersonal relations. On the other hand, leaders on low LPC tend to act more in directions that are task oriented, why they acquire most of their self-esteem and satisfaction from successfully performing designated tasks.

Cognitive complexity

This interpretation is centered on item-level. In this section, leaders on high LPC describe their least preferred coworkers as possessing good characteristics, with only a few leaders give an entirely positive ratings, while some offer bad ratings. That is to say, they are actually rating their leas preferred coworkers from both the favorable and unfavorable angles from each dimension. On the other hand, a low LPC leader is viewed to be less differentiating between task performance and interpersonal relations. Thus, such leaders would not just describe their least preferred towards as inefficient but also consider them to be unfriendly and cold. However, it should be noted that no consistent empirical support have been found for interpretation of the cognitive complexity.

Motivational hierarchy

The term ‘hierarchical’ is used to refer to the individual structuring of a leader’s behavior. Behavior is considered to be the leader’s style of reaction. The LPC assess leaders’ underlying styles as it relates to need; while, their behavior is dependent on how the fulfill these needs. Thus, leaders that have high LPC score are viewed to have strong need for achieving and sustaining quality interpersonal relationship, while those with low LPC scores are focused primarily on successful task performance.

Value attitude

The value-attitude interpretation was partially adopted by Fiedler (1987). In this interpretation, the LPC score is viewed as a measure motivational hierarchy, which does show the extent to which the individual has set a higher priority or value on a given task to be accomplished (low LPC or task-motivated), or on the need to maintain good interpersonal relations (high LPC or relationship-motivated). If a low LPC score of 63 or below is obtained, it does reflect more of an emotional evaluation than a rational evaluation of the co-worker being assessed, but a high LPC or 72 or more does indicate less emotional evaluation of the co-worker.

Critical review of the theory

Although numerous researches have been developed, the contingency theory by Fiedler has been criticized for inconsistencies in results (Gill, 2011). It has been noted that validating findings from the Fiedler Model is difficult, because they are based on leadership styles that are measured with the aid of the LPC scale, which on its own is yet to be validated. While it has been acknowledged that the Fiedler’s model has been effective in broadening scholars understanding and knowledge of leadership styles by putting situations into direct views, it still isn’t able to provide explanations as to why people with some leadership styles produce more effective outcomes in certain context when compared with others. While the focus of the Fiedler’s approach has been on relationship-oriented and task-oriented, later studies on leadership style has found that majority of the leaders tend to have a balance of both behaviors. In line with Yukl (2010, p. 168), medium LPC leaders that are probably higher than those with high and low LPC are normally neglected by the model and majority of researches done with it. To further add as a support, it has been suggested in research that medium LPC leaders are more effective when compared with low or high LPC leaders in most of the circumstances (five out of the eight octants), and it is presumed that the reason for such is because they create balance between task-orientation and relationship-orientation, making them more successful in the end.

In the modern corporate setting, contingency is being used to represent a change in leadership research because it does stops focusing only on the leaders, and shifts focus rather to the situation facing the leader and how the leader leads in such situation. It was also noted that even those who criticize the model need to concur that its development have challenged the assumption of “one fit method” and the model did aid in providing valuable little step for conceptualizing leadership style.

From a concluding view, it has been highlighted in the contingency theory that it is important to consider the situations when assessing the behavior of leaders. In a world that is constantly changing, the concept that leaders in organizations need to adapt to varied behaviors in order to attain the objectives of varied situations is crucial. Notwithstanding their contributions, it has been noted that earlier contingency theories has numerous weaknesses in the way they were conceptualized, making it difficult to validate or use these theories (Yukl 2011). Considering this ambiguity in the conceptualization of early contingency theories, there was a resulting decline in scholarly interests (House and Aditya 1997; Yukl 2011).

Interpreting task-orientation in the LPC model

Task-focused leaders re considered low in LPC, and they are motivated by the extent to which they can successful completed a designated tasks. These leaders do not need extrinsic rewards. Tangible measurement of evidence that show they are performing and attaining desired results are the main tool they use for gaining self-esteem. These form of leaders demand clear guidelines and operating procedures. They do not waste time in getting down to business and they organize delegated tasks fast, create necessary schedules and monitor overall productivity of the task closely. They value business before pleasure.

In terms of control, task-focused leaders perform best when it low control situation, although they still find this situation challenging. In the event that guidelines are not laid out clearly, the task-focused leaders will develop or find the right paths in order to ensure successful completion of the task. Task-focused leaders find themselves to be in full control of the situations in high control situation. As they need not be worried about the task at hand, they are able of relax a little and become more easy. However, they are uncomfortable when they find themselves in moderate control situations. This is because moderate control situations yield interpersonal conflicts, and as such, the leader avoids the conflict by being fully engaged with the tasks. This will lead to loss of productivity as well as reduction on the work standard.

Fixing a failed state with task-focused leadership

By definition, a state is a sovereign entity located within a definite geographical setting. It is a system of varied government, working together for a common goal. From the government sphere, it is clear that a state is based on shared leadership as no individual person within the system of government controls the state independently. All leaders work together for a common good.

Numerous researches have been done on shred leadership but majority of such researches fall within the health care domain and education domain. In any case, there have also been studies outside these two domain although such as been scare, but include broad collection of varied organizational groups and systems: new ventures, religious groups, road maintenance team, manufacturing, consulting, sales, banks, police departments, and local governments (Berman, 1996).

By definition, shared leadership refers to a system in which the leadership is distributed across different people instead of having it focused on a single individual. In accordance with Day, Gronn, and Salas (2004), it is important to pay attention to the outcome emanating from shared leadership because detecting faults might be difficult. Basically, the components of shared leadership are: shared purpose, social support, and voice. In order to ensure quality performance, it becomes clear that task-focused leadership does have significant role to play.

For a modern state, the key functions include:

·         A legitimate monopoly on the means of violence;

·         Administrative control:

·         Sound management of public finances;

·         Investment in human capital;

·         The creation of citizenship rights and duties; Provision of infrastructure;

·         Market formation;

·         Management of the assets of the state;

·         Effective public borrowing; and

·         Maintenance of rule of law.

In order to attain these functions, it is important for the leaders to put relationship aside and focus on designated task. Task-focused leadership will help in build a failed state by:

·         Ensuring that all leaders are focused on the state’s shared values. That is to say, they are all working towards higher task performance and better outcomes, which will enhance overall value of the state both internally and externally;

·         Ensuring fairness in deal and higher level of accountability. Once relationship-focus is left out of the game, the leaders give contract to the more reliable company and are also more accountable to their actions. Essentially, better outcomes will be delivered through the contracts and the leaders will avoid decisions that impair the nation’s growth;

·         Task-oriented leaders are much more in control of situations they face and they do not need extrinsic rewards. Thus, they can help deliver a secure state with a strong sovereignty that cannot be threatened internally or externally.

References

Berman, E. M. (1996). Local government and community-based strategies: Evidence from a national survey of a social problem. American Review of Public Administration, 26(1), 71-91.

Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 857-880.

Fiedler, F. E. (1978). Te contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in the experimental social psychology (pp. 59–112). New York: Academic Press.

Gill, R. (2011). Teory and practice of leadership (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). Te social scientifc study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3), 409–473.

Nahavandi, A. (2006). “The Art and Science of Leadership, 4e.” Retrieved from https://ecampus.phoenix.edu/content/eBookLibrary2/content/eReader.aspx?assetMetaId=07e39066-1f5e4b57-a00d-6c77040801d6&assetDataId=d41ad2b0-2630-461d-a0ece2c940435753&assetpdfdataid=d47295b0-5594-433e-8c30-6c0633a9c075

Rice, R.W. (1978a). Psychometric properties of the esteem for least preferred coworker (LPC scale). Academy of Management Review, 3, 106-118.

Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organisations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Limited.