Let’s Understand Fiedler’s Contingency Model
Fiedler’s Contingency Model emphasizes that there is no single leadership style that fits every given situation. The problem is that it’s hard for us to change our leadership style because we’ve become accustomed to it over a long period, and as a result, we can’t adapt ourselves to every case and situation. In other words, since it’s difficult for us to change our leadership style, we might find ourselves in situations that don’t match it and that we can’t resolve effectively.
According to Fiedler’s model, there are two types of leaders:
Relationship-oriented leaders: They build strong relationships, encourage trust, and emphasize the importance of collaboration at work. However, they may find it difficult to ensure tasks are completed efficiently.
Task-oriented leaders: They focus on goals, emphasize efficiency, and encourage task completion. Such leaders excel at providing structure and guidance to their subordinates but struggle in situations where relationships need to be more central for task success.
To assess your leadership style, or at least where you lean, Fiedler’s method uses a measurement scale called LPC, which stands for Least-Preferred Co-Worker. To determine your position on this scale, you need to rate the co-worker you least enjoy working with on a scale from 1 to 8 across several categories (1 is low, 8 is high):
- How friendly they are
- How cooperative they are
- How supportive they are (the opposite of hostile)
- How open they are to new ideas
If you get a high score, it means you are a relationship-oriented leader. If you get a low score, it means you are a task-oriented leader. It’s also possible that you fall somewhere in the middle, combining both leadership styles.
Examples of Fiedler’s Contingency Model in Action
This model can be applied anywhere leadership skills are required. For example, when managing a creative team, such as graphic designers in an advertising agency, there is usually less structure, the leader’s authority is weaker, and good relationships between the leader and subordinates are needed. Therefore, what’s required here is a relationship-oriented leadership style to help employees activate their creative minds together, rather than trying to impose specific goals or a uniform way of thinking.
Another example could be a new manager stepping into a role at a startup, where there may not yet be much structure, the leader’s authority is weak because they are new, and the relationships between the leader and the team are loose, also because they are new. The situation sounds similar, but it actually requires a task-oriented leadership style, simply because a relationship-oriented leader would fail to complete the work in such a work environment.
A task-oriented leader can also be effective when the task requires a clear structure, such as in a sports team or an airline company, where they need to take full control to achieve results. If the leadership style in such cases were relationship-oriented, unnecessary time would be wasted on discussions, for example, about who should play more minutes on the field or where to land the planes – these are not topics for discussion; they are decisions the leader needs to make.
Based on these examples, you can understand how different leadership styles may be required depending on the given situation. Therefore, you can’t simply decide you’re a certain type of leader and expect to always achieve good results. You need to adapt to the situation and understand whether a clear structure is needed, whether you need more authority in the team, and whether there’s a need to strengthen relationships among team members.
Are There Disadvantages to Fiedler’s Contingency Model?
Some experts argue that this model is too rigid because, according to it, if the situation cannot be changed, the leader must be replaced with a more suitable one, and there is no other option. Additionally, not everyone can evaluate themselves objectively and fully understand their leadership style, including the scoring method established by Fiedler. It’s also unclear what to do with people who receive an average score. According to the model, a leader should be chosen for a task based on the situation, but this means that someone with an average score is supposedly not suitable for any situation.
A Few Words in Conclusion
The purpose of this article is, among other things, to help managers understand how to choose the right leader for different teams. If the team is not performing well, it may be that you need a different leader who can manage it better and according to its situation. At the same time, anyone managing people in any environment and at any scale is recommended to ensure they are leading the team in the way it requires (based on the situation). If you receive feedback or feel concerns about work stability, it doesn’t mean you’re not a good leader, but simply that you’re not suited to the situation you’ve been placed in.
Therefore, if you find yourself in a situation where you’re looking for another job and you know you’re a certain type of leader, you may need to look for one that matches your leadership style. On the other hand, if you can be flexible and understand how to adapt to the situation in the job you find, you may be able to succeed in any environment you’re required to lead. Only you know what you’re truly capable of, and now you’re aware of the changes required of you and in your leadership style.
