Presented by:
 Siow Li Ling
 Zatil Aqmar Mohd Halimi
 Woon Pei Joon
 Noor Nadiatul Akma Hamidon




LPC Contingency Model
Path-Goal Theory of Leadership
Situational Leadership Theory
Leadership Substitutes Theory
This presentation is discussing about the
different contingency theories of leadership.
There are several theories include in this
presentation which are LPC Contingency Model,
Path-Goal Theory of Leadership, Situational
Leadership Theory and Leadership Substitutes
Theory. Actually there are advantages and
disadvantages of these several theories and may
not apply in all situations. The main key here is
all the leadership theories are a guideline for the
leaders but it depends much on the situations.
•This
model describes how the
situation moderates the relationship
between leadership effectiveness
•Trait measure – least preferred
coworker (LPC) score
Rate the coworker who has worked least well
by using a set of bipolar adjective scales
 examples:
Unfriendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Friendly
Uncooperative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cooperative
 Sum of the rating - critical = low
- lenient = high


Fiedler’s (1978) most recent interpretation, the
LPC score indicates a leader’s motive
hierarchy.

Rice (1978) concluded that the data support a
value-attitude interpretation
- low LPC leaders value task success
- high LPC leaders value interpersonal success
• Three aspects of the situation are considered:
1) Leader- member relations
2) Position power
3) Task structure
Favorability is determined by weighting and
combining these three aspects of the situation.
L-M
Octant Relations
Task
Position
Structure Power
Effective
Leader
1
Good
Structured
Strong
Low LPC
2
Good
Structured
Weak
Low LPC
3
Good
Unstructured
Strong
Low LPC
4
Good
Unstructured
Weak
Low LPC
5
Poor
Structured
Strong
High LPC
6
Poor
Structured
Weak
High LPC
7
Poor
Unstructured
Strong
High LPC
8
Poor
Unstructured
Weak
High LPC
 LPC
score may not be stable over time
and may be more complex than assumed.
 The model is not really a theory, it does
not explain how a leader’s LPC score
affect group performance.
 The model neglects medium LPC leaders
who probably outnumber the high and
low LPC leader.

a)
b)



Developed by
Evans (1970)- earlier version
House (1971)- next version. More elaboration which
include situational variables in it
Explaining how the behavior of the leader influences
the satisfaction and performance of the subordinate
This theory based on the expectancy theory in
explaining it (work motivation).
ET: A person decides how much effort to devote to a
job at a given time.




Subordinates perceptions: If the subordinate believes that
the serious effort given from him will lead to the result in
completing the task then, he will make the effort.
(Leader’s behavior will modify these perceptions)
Depending on the situation, effect of leaders’ behavior on
the subordinates’ satisfaction & performance may the
same way, both differently or only one of them.
Expectancy: perceived probability of an outcome
Valences: desirability of an outcome
“ how many expectancies & valences for different
outcomes and level of effort combine to determine
motivation is still a controversy”




1) supportive: concerning about the need of the
subordinates, welfare and try making friend with
them
2) directive: giving instructions to subordinates to
make sure what they should do in achieving current
goals. Coordinating the works for them to follow
3) participative: involve them in discussions and
listen to their opinions as well
4) achievement-oriented: set the challenge goal,
seeking better performance from them shows them
confidence in attaining the high standards


Effect of the leader’s behavior on the satisfaction &
performance of the subordinates is depending on the situation
Involve - task characteristics
- subordinates characteristics
Causal
variable
(leader
behavior)
Intervening
variables
(subordinates
expectancies
& valences)
Situational variables
( task characteristics,
subordinates characteristics)
Result
variables
(subordinat
es effort &
satisfaction)
Reduce boredom
& make job more
tolerable
SUPPORTIVE
LEADERSHIP
Increase effort
Increase selfconfidence &
lower anxiety



Increase the
intrinsic valence
of work
Increase effortperformance
expectancy
It is for supportive leadership
Only suitable when the task is stressful, boring, tedious/
dangerous
If task is interesting, enjoyable, subordinates already confident
supportive leadership only has little effect/ not at all
Reduce role
ambiguity
DIRECTIVE
LEADERSHIP
Increase
size of
incentives
Strengthen
reward
contingencies
Increase
effortperformance
expectancy
Increase
outcome
valence for
task success
Increase
performancereward
expectancies
Increase
subordinat
e effort
1. Rely on expectancy theory as the primary basis in explaining leader
influence
(not account the emotional relations to decision dilemmas-denial/ distortion
of relevant info about expectancies & valences, & sometimes, subordinates
have differ perceptions of outcomes by using different actions)
2.
Role ambiguity will cause a person to have low expectancy & leader
behavior will increase it
(sometimes, attainment of specific goals are difficult than what
subordinates think, & it is determined that role ambiguity is based on task
structure rather than employee itself (ability/ experience)
3. Each type of leader behavior is considered separately
(there might be interactions among the behaviors/ more than 1 situational
variables)
eg: directive leadership suits when there is unstructured task but it might
be suitable if the subordinates have high level of training & experiences.
Proposed by Hersey and Blanchard(1977)
 Specifies the appropriate type of leadership
behavior for different levels of subordinate
’maturity’ n relation to the work.
 A high-maturity subordinate has both the
ability and confidence to do a task, whereas a
low-maturity subordinate lacks ability and
self-confidence.

According to Hersey and Blanchard, knowing when to use each style is
largely dependent on the maturity of the person or group you're leading.
They break maturity down into four different levels:
 M1 – People at this level of maturity are at the bottom level of the
scale. They lack the knowledge, skills, or confidence to work on
their own, and they often need to be pushed to take the task on.
 M2 – At this level, followers might be willing to work on the task,
but they still don't have the skills to do it successfully.
 M3 – Here, followers are ready and willing to help with the task.
They have more skills than the M2 group, but they're still not
confident in their abilities.
 M4 – These followers are able to work on their own. They have high
confidence and strong skills, and they're committed to the task.



M1, the leader should use substantial task-oriented
behavior and be directive in defining roles, clarifying
standards and procedures, and monitoring progress
on attainment of objectives.
M2 & M3, the leader can decrease the amount of
task-oriented behavior and provide more relationsoriented behavior.
M4, the leader should use a low level of task-oriented
and relations-oriented behaviors.
Maturity Level
Most Appropriate
Leadership Style
M1: Low maturity
S1: Telling/directing
M2: Medium maturity,
limited skills
S2: Selling/coaching
M3: Medium maturity,
higher skills but lacking
confidence
S3: Participating/supporting
M4: High maturity
S4: Delegating



Studies found support for the proposition that more
directive supervision is needed for subordinates who
have low ability and confidence.
Using the contingent pattern of task and relations
behavior prescribed by the theory will make leaders
more effective.
Blake and Mouton, specifies that a relatively high
level of both task and relations behavior is optimal as
long as the specific types of behavior are appropriate
for the situation.
Emphasis on flexible, adaptive behavior,
which has become a central tenet of some
recent theory and research
 Essential to treat different subordinates
differently
 Vary behavior as the situation changes
 Advanced the proposition that leaders should
be aware of opportunity to build the skills and
confidence of subordinates





Limit the utility of situational leadership theory and
help to explain the lack of support for it in the
research.
Leadership behavior is not clearly defined and
consistently. The model also lacks a clear explanation
about the process by which leader behavior
influences subordinate performance.
The maturity is a composite of diverse elements and
the procedure used to weight and combine them is
highly questionable.
The model only acknowledge the leaders can
influences some components of maturity with
developmental interventions.
Kerr & Jermier (1978)

Identify aspects of situation that reduce
the important of leadership by leaders
Initial version
Mostly concerned with identifying
substitutes and neutralizers for
supportive and instrumental
leadership
1.
Substitutes
 Makes leader behavior unnecessary & redundant
 Include characteristic of subordinate, task or
Organization.
2.
Neutralizer
 Prevent leader from acting in specified
way/nullify the effect of leader action.
 Including characteristic of task or Organization.
Characteristic that involve in
substitute or neutralizers
Subordinate characteristics
1. Experience, ability, training
2. Professional orientation
3. Indifference toward reward
Task characteristics
1. Structured, routine task
2. Feedback provided by task
3. Intrinsically satisfying task
Organization characteristics
1. Cohesive work group
2. Low position power
3. Formalization (roles, procedures)
4. Inflexibility (rules, policies)
5. Dispersed subordinate work sites
Supportive
leadership
Instrumental
leadership
Substitute
Substitute
Neutralizer
Substitute
Neutralizer
Substitute
Substitute
Neutralizer
Neutralizer
Substitute
Substitute
Substitute
Neutralizer
Substitute
Neutralizer
Neutralizer
Howell & colleagues (1990)
“If there so many neutralizer, that
difficult/impossible for any leader to succeed”
 Remove
neutralizer by changing the situation.
Kerr & Jermier (1978)
 their
model was design to deal only with
substitutes for leadership behavior by a formal
leader
Merely replaced by similar leadership
behavior carried out by peers or informal
leaders
(shared among members of group)

Research provide strong evidence that
situational variables can directly affect
dependent variables such as subordinate
motivation
Mc Intosh (1988)
 Proposed that, evaluation research on
substitute emphasize wrong aspect.
 Research should pay more attention to the
direct effect of situational variables on
substitutes variables & leadership behavior

It does not provide a detailed rationale for each substitute and
neutralizer in term of causal processes involving explicit
intervening variables.
Reduce the important of an intervening variable and
substitute that involve leadership behavior by people
rather than the leader.

Failure to differentiate between direct actions by leader to
improve dependent variables and action to improve a
substitute that effect the dependent variable.
Take actions to reduce constrains that prevent the use of
effective behaviors and block neutralizers that undermine
the effects of a potential relevant behavior.
Leader substitutes theory emphasized the
importance of formal leaders by showing how
their influence can be replaced by
1.
2.
3.
4.
Work design
Reward system
Informal peer leadership
Self management