Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.459710
Title: A critical evaluation of Fiedler's predictor measures of leadership effectiveness
Author: Hosking, Dian Marie
ISNI:       0000 0001 3582 0349
Awarding Body: University of Warwick
Current Institution: University of Warwick
Date of Award: 1978
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
Fiedler has claimed that leadership effectiveness is a function of: a) the type of leader (measured by LPC or ASO), b) the type of group, c) the type of task, and d) the position-power of the leader. In Part I, evidence is presented to show that LPC/ASO scores correlate with leadership effectiveness, but not in the manner required by Fiedler's theory. The conclusions reached differ from those usually presented in the literature, and are based on a detailed, systematic description of available research. It is felt that this critique constitutes a substantial theoretical contribution, worthy of publication in its own right. In Parts II and III, the meaning of LPC/ASO is examined. Particular attention is paid to relationships between LPC/ASO and: a) cognitive complexity; b) perceptions of leader behaviour. Three types of evidence are presented: a) a critical review of existing studies (felt to be a substantial contribution to the literature); b) correlations between LPC/ASO and independent measures of cognitive complexity (calculated for subjects with and without leadership experience); c) an experimental investigation of perceptions of leader behaviour It is concluded that: a) Existing interpretations of LPC/ASO are inadequate. In particular, LPC/ASO do not relate to measures of cognitive complexity used in this study. b) LPC/ASO do not appear to reflect straightforward differences in perceptions of leader behaviour. c) No satisfactory interpretation of LPC/ASO exists, furthermore, recent research calls into question their test-retest reliability. d) Fiedler's theory contains severe theoretical and methodological flaws, and lacks empirical support. It is suggested that his theory be rejected, and further research concentrate on other individual-difference variables.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Engineering Industry Training Board
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.459710  DOI: Not available
Keywords: HD Industries. Land use. Labor ; HM Sociology
Share: