Workplace Discrimination And Leadership Management Case Study

timer Asked: Mar 8th, 2019
account_balance_wallet $9.99

Question Description

I have attached the two reference. no plagiarize, spell check, and check your grammar. Please only use the attached below. Only 300 words. the third references I dont have.

Refer to the discussion of Fiedler’s original work on contingency theory found in the Yukl (2013) text. There has been much debate over the validity of this model (and related extensions). Is a contingency approach still applicable in the workforce today? If yes, when is it appropriate? If no, why not? Please support your position with at least two outside sources in addition to required readings.


da Cruz, M. R. P., Nunes, A. J. S., & Pinheiro, P. G. (2011). Fiedler’s Contingency Theory: Practical Application of the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) Scale. IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10(4), 7–26. Retrieved from

Miller, R. L., Butler, J., & Cosentino, C. J. (2004). Fellowership effectiveness: An extension of fiedler's contingency model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(3), 362-368. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy-library.ashford....

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Fiedler’s Contingency Theory: Practical Application of the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) Scale Maria Rosa Pires da Cruz*, António João Santos Nunes** and Paulo Gonçalves Pinheiro*** The present study aims at some considerations about leadership from the contingency perspective, focuses on the theory of Fiedler, whose basic premise is that group performance is contingent depending on the interaction of leadership styles and situations favorable to the leader. Leadership is an issue that has aroused much interest among people and is probably one of mankind’s most ancient concerns. Fiedler uses the distinction between task-oriented leadership style and relationship-oriented leadership style, relating these leadership styles with different types of situation, in order to determine the contingencies that make either style effective. Based on Fiedler’s theory, a case study was applied in Cape Verde at the University of Beira Interior (CABOUBI) (association of African students from Cape Verde) to confirm the applicability of the measures advocated by the theory (least preferred coworker). Introduction Leadership investigation and practices have been paid renewed attention in the recent years due to the unprecedented transformations experienced by organizations towards the end of the last millennium (Tirmizi, 2002). Jago (1982) stated that despite various investigations on this subject, up to then there was no clear and unequivocal understanding of what distinguished a leader from a non-leader, and perhaps even more importantly, what distinguished an efficient leader from an inefficient leader. Leadership is a topic that has aroused much interest among people, and is probably one of mankind’s most ancient concerns (Tirmizi, 2002). Leadership exists predominantly inside people and organizations (Chang and Lee, 2007). Put simplistically, leadership can be said to be the ability to affect others (Bethel, 1990). Bohn and Grafton (2002) stated that leadership means the path to create a clear vision of tasks, giving subordinates self-confidence created * Researcher, Department of Management and Economics, University of Beira Interior, NECE – Nucleus of Business Science Studies, Covilhã, Portugal. E-mail: ** Assistant Professor, Department of Management and Economics, University of Beira Interior, NECE – Nucleus of Business Science Studies, Covilhã, Portugal; and is the corresponding author. E-mail: *** Assistant Professor, Department of Management and Economics, University of Beira Interior, NECE – Nucleus of Business Science Studies, Covilhã, Portugal. E-mail: Fiedler’s Contingency Theory: Practical Application of the Least Preferred © 2011 IUP. All Rights Reserved. Coworker (LPC) Scale 7 through permanent coordination and communication. It has long been debated if leaders are born with that characteristic or if anyone can be trained to become a leader (Armandi et al., 2003). Bass and Avolio (1990) concluded that leadership type and level of success depend on the agreement between cultural values and the leadership process. Wu (2009) identified four periods in the development of leadership theory—the theory of traits/characteristics; the theory of behavior; contingency theory; and new approaches to leadership. For Armandi et al. (2003), the first leadership theories contain theories focused on how to be an efficient leader, and not how to make leadership efficient. Traditional leadership theories see the relationship between leaders and followers as active and passive (Wu, 2009), whereas in the new theories leadership is a continuous, adjusted process where the leader’s behavior changes according to the feedback from followers. Contingency theories of leadership analyze how situational factors alter the effectiveness of behavior and the leadership style of a particular leader. The assumption is that neither leaders’ characteristics nor behavior nor styles form leaders automatically. The key is the appropriateness of leadership styles to the situations faced by leaders. Among the various contingency theories, the most important, according to Tirmizi (2002), are Fiedler’s contingency theory of 1964 and 1967, the “paths goal theory” (Evans in 1970; House in 1971; House and Mitchell in 1974) and the leader participation model (Vroom and Yetton in 1974). In this study, attention falls exclusively on Fiedler’s contingency theory. The basic premise of contingency theory for this investigator is that group performance is contingent, in that it depends on the interaction of leadership styles and situations that are favorable to the leader (Mitchell et al., 1970). The objective of this study is to present some considerations about leadership from the contingency perspective, and more precisely, analyze Fiedler’s contingency theory. The intention is also to elaborate a case study applied to the Cape Verde at the University of Beira Interior (CABOUBI) association, so as to check the applicability of one of the measures proposed by this theory—Least Preferred Coworker (LPC). To attain these goals, the next section presents the theoretical foundations of the concept and general approach to leadership and leadership from the contingency perspective. In leadership from the contingency perspective, the most important aspects of Fiedler’s contingency theory will be dealt with, such as the operationalization of the model’s situational variables and the concept of Leader Match. Next, the paper presents some strengths and criticisms of Fiedler’s model, and then analyzes a practical case of applying the LPC scale, and finally ends with a conclusion. Theoretical Foundations Concept and General Approach to Leadership Any organization requires management and management requires a certain level of leadership skill (Wu, 2009). An organization’s success depends on its skill in taking 8 The IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. X, No. 4, 2011 advantage of employees’ competences and knowledge (Armandi et al., 2003). To become competitive, companies must stimulate their employees and encourage their initiative. This proactive climate needs more than a traditional manager but rather a leader who can help to develop employees, installing a sense of effort and commitment. Leadership is frequently seen as a critical factor for the success or failure of institutions (Bass and Avolio, 1990). A leader can be a manager but a manager is not necessarily a leader (Armandi et al., 2003). Although some people use these terms indeterminately, they refer to different functions. A manager is indicated by the organization and has formal authority to direct others’ activities to reach the organization’s objectives, while the leader is the one who influences others in as much as they voluntarily carry out what the leader asks of them. For Zaleznik (1977), managers and leaders are very different people with regard to their motivation, their personal background and their way of thinking and acting. This question has generated some controversy, for example, House and Aditya (1997) alleged that it is possible for managers to be leaders and for leaders to be managers. According to Rego and Cunha (2007), leadership and management can be considered as distinct processes or functions. Leadership is a universal phenomenon, in that it is manifest in one form or another in different organizations and contexts (Tirmizi, 2002). According to Dorfman (1996), leaders have existed in all cultures throughout history. There are as many definitions of leadership as there are people who have tried to define this concept (Jago, 1982). According to this investigator, leadership is a process and a characteristic. The leadership process comes from the use of a non-coercive influence to direct and coordinate the activities of the members of an organized group with a view to fulfilling group objectives. As a characteristic, leadership is a set of qualities attributed to those who use a certain influence successfully. Leadership does not involve the use of force, coercion or dominance and does not necessarily imply the use of certain titles such as manager, supervisor or boss. Betel (1990) considered leadership as the ability to affect others. Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to attain common goals (Northouse, 1997; and Armandi et al., 2003). Fiedler (1965) stated that leadership is a personal relationship where one individual directs, coordinates and supervises others in performing mutual tasks. Heilbrun (1994) and Tirmizi (2002) divide leadership theories in three stages— (i) definition of the leader; (ii) research into the leader’s behavior; and (iii) focus on the interaction between the leader and followers. However, Wu (2009) identified four periods or stages of the development of leadership theories in the last 100 years, illustrated in Figure 1—(i) the period of ‘traits/characteristics’ from the end of the 1800s to the middle of the 1940s, when the individual characteristics of efficient leaders were studied; (ii) the period of behavior, from the mid-1940s to the early 1970s, when investigators studied the influence of leaders’ style and behavior on the effectiveness of leadership in order to obtain bases for training leaders; (iii) the contingency period, from the early 1960s to the present, Fiedler’s Contingency Theory: Practical Application of the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) Scale 9 when investigators formulate theories that pay attention to the behavior and environment of leaders and followers and the environmental conditions suitable for various leadership styles; and (iv) new approaches to leadership, from the early 1980s to the present, when new theories are proposed to classify leadership in transformational, transactional and laissez-faire styles. Figure 1: Development of Leadership Theories Early 1980s – The present New approaches to leadership Early 1960s – The present Contingency period Mid-1940s – Early 1970s Behavior period Late 1800s – Mid-1940s Period of traits/characteristics Source: Adapted from Mitchell et al. (1970, p. 254) Theories of Traits/Characteristics At the time when this theory was in force, investigations focused on identifying traits that differentiated a leader from a non-leader (Armandi et al., 2003). The aim was to identify a set of traits that would help in choosing the right person for posts requiring efficient leadership. According to Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991), none of the six characteristics identified as being associated with leaders (drivers with a desire to lead, honesty and integrity, confidence, intelligence and relevant knowledge about the work) distinguishes consistently a leader from a non-leader. The main reason for the failure of the trait/ characteristic theory is that it does not consider interaction between leaders and subordinates, or situational conditions (Armandi et al., 2003). Behavior Theory The intention of behavior theory was to identify the determinants of leadership to be able to train people to be leaders (Armandi et al., 2003; and Wu, 2009). Some approaches to leader behavior focused on identifying the best leadership styles. This theory was developed by several investigators at the University of Ohio (Fleishman, 1953) and by the University of Michigan (Bowers and Shashore, 1966). This theory failed when it became clear that appropriate leadership styles are moderated by situational restrictions (Armandi et al., 2003). This is why the contingency and transformational theories dominate the current thought on leadership (DuBrin, 1998). 10 The IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. X, No. 4, 2011 Contingency Theory The first comprehensive model of contingency theory proposed that the efficiency of group performance depends on the combination of the leader’s style in interacting with followers and the degree of control and influence the leader has over circumstances (Armandi et al., 2003). Constructing based on the results of the behavior approach, Fiedler (1964 and 1967), quoted by Northouse (1997), suggests that leadership styles are oriented towards both relationships and tasks. Although this model had some success, it has notable weaknesses (Armandi et al., 2003) which will be dealt with in the next section. New Approaches to Leadership The new approaches include transformational, transactional and laissez-faire theories (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1997; Chang and Lee, 2007; and Wu, 2009). New theories state that leaders gain followers’ trust and respect, and so leadership is a kind of adjusted continuous process whereby the leader’s behavior changes according to the feedback from followers (Armandi et al., 2003). Leadership from the Contingency Perspective In the 1960s and 1970s, theorists, researchers and practitioners of leadership debated a controversy commonly referred to as ‘situational’ versus ‘one best style’ (Blake and Mouton, 1982). The situational or contingent approach interprets leadership theory and research “without the existence of any one best style, the effectiveness of leadership depending on the situation”. In direct contradiction, the theorists of one best style state “there is one best style”. This implies applying principles of leadership like those suggested in behavior sciences. As mentioned earlier, contingency theories of leadership analyze how situational factors alter the effectiveness of a particular leader’s behavior and leadership style (Tirmizi, 2002). The assumption is that neither leaders’ characteristics nor behavior nor styles automatically form leaders. The key is matching leadership styles to the situations faced by leaders. From the various contingency theories, according to Tirmizi (2002), the most important are Fiedler’s contingency theory (1964 and 1967), paths goal theory (Evans, 1970; House, 1971; and House and Mitchell, 1974) and the leader participation model (Vroom and Yetton, 1973). However, this investigation will only analyze Fiedler’s theory. Fiedler’s Contingency Theory The basic premise of Fiedler’s contingency theory is that group performance is contingent in that it depends on the interaction of leadership styles and situations favorable to the leader (Mitchell et al., 1970). Fiedler uses the distinction between leadership style oriented towards tasks and that oriented towards relationships, and proposes to relate these leadership styles to different types of situation with a view in determining what contingencies make one or another style effective (Jesuíno, 2005). Orientation towards the task or orientation towards the relationship represents, above Fiedler’s Contingency Theory: Practical Application of the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) Scale 11 all, leaders’ motivational priorities and one is not better than the other. Leaders motivated towards tasks are primarily concerned with reaching objectives, while leaders motivated towards relationships are concerned with developing close interpersonal relationships (Northouse, 1997). According to Fiedler, an individual leadership style depends on the leader’s personality, which is fixed (Bedeian and Gleuck, 1983), and in this sense, the right style should be matched to the right situation (Armandi et al., 2003). Fiedler’s theory consists basically of relating the leader’s characteristics, determined from how he classifies the least preferred coworker regarding group effectiveness, determined from an objective criterion (Jesuíno, 2005). In synthesis, the theory explains group performance as the result of two factors interacting—(i) leadership styles; and (ii) situational variables. Leadership Styles To classify leadership styles, Fiedler (1965) developed a measure called the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale. This measure is represented in questionnaire format, where respondents were asked to describe the colleague they have least preferred working with, considering a list of 16 bipolar adjectives on a scale from 1 to 8, for example (unfriendly – friendly, uncooperative – cooperative; introvert – extrovert). The answers on this scale are totalled and the averages calculated, which represents the LPC (Mitchell et al., 1970). If the LPC is high, i.e., if the LPC is described in relatively positive terms, according to Fiedler, this means the style is oriented towards human relationships (Leister et al., 1977), that is to say, these leaders’ primary motivation is to have a closer relationship with the group. On the other hand, if the LPC is low, i.e., the collaborator is described in relatively negative terms, the style is task-oriented. Fiedler’s logic is that individuals who evaluate the LPC in relatively positive terms on the LPC scale obtain satisfaction from the interpersonal relationship, whereas those who evaluate the LPC in relatively unfavorable terms take satisfaction through task performance (Gray and Starke, 1988). This measure has been the subject of various investigations, both to validate it and contest it. According to Jesuíno (2005) and Armandi et al. (2003), before the LPC scale, Fiedler applied the Assumed Similarity of Opposites (ASO) scale, which consisted of two scales—the Most Preferred Coworker (MPC) scale and the LPC scale. Respondents described first the collaborator with whom they found it easiest to work and then the one they had most difficulty to work with so far. The ASO score was calculated as follows— first by obtaining the square of the difference between the MPC and LPC for each item, and then adding the total of squares and extracting their square root. However, as the ASO scale and the LPC score were highly correlated, Fiedler (1965) came to adopt exclusively the LPC scale (Jesuíno, 2005). Jesuíno (2005) tried to identify the meaning of this scale, i.e., what the LPC scale really measures. According to this investigator, the answer to this question is not simple, 12 The IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. X, No. 4, 2011 with multiple studies attempting to clarify it. Fiedler and his collaborators proposed successively four different interpretations for the LPC scale (Jesuíno, 2005): 1. In 1957-1958, the LPC was considered an indicator of psychological distance: individuals with a low LPC were considered more distant than those with a high LPC. The measure used then was ASO; 2. In 1964-1967, Fiedler proposed that the LPC scale measures two different motives or needs. Individuals with a high LPC would have a strong need to maintain good interpersonal relationships, while those with a low LPC would have a greater need to obtain success in carrying out tasks; 3. From 1969 to 1971, the LPC was presented in terms of cognitive complexity, whereby individuals with a high LPC would be cognitively more complex than those with a low LPC score. 4. In 1972, Fiedler interpreted the scale in terms of motivational hierarchy. The concept of secondary motives was added to interpretation of the motives and needs scale. That is, in this interpretation, the primary objective of individuals with a high LPC is interpersonal success, and the secondary one is task success. On the contrary, the primary objective of individuals with a low LPC is task success and the secondary one, interpersonal success. Another aspect of the LPC scale that has warranted attention by investigators is the classification of the scores obtained, i.e., what is the point of separation for considering the LPC high or low? According to Jesuíno (2005), in a personal communication, Fiedler (1981) set the following thresholds—73 or above (high LPC); 64-72 (intermediate LPC); 63 or under (low LPC). That is to say, from that date, the existence of an intermediate LPC was assumed, and according to Northouse (1997), leaders falling into this category are socio-independent ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

School: Carnegie Mellon University



Workplace Discrimination
Institution Affiliation




Creating an environment whereby all workers can work without discrimination,
harassment and treated in the right way is the responsibility of the employer. Based on this it is
essential to acknowledge that no working environment can be with no such happenings but the
degree and extent matters (Sheehan et al., 2018). Working in a dynamic environment could bring
with it many challenges, but this is not the biggest undoing. The biggest downfall is the inability
to deal with these workplace challenges as it creates a bad image for the entire organization.
Type of Discrimination and Harassment
Bullying is wrong in workplaces as it in a significant way reduces the productivity of the
individuals who are bullied. In most cases, the inability of individuals to defend themselves from
the bullies is one of the significant causes of workplace discomfort and instability. In this
scenario, bullying took place when a senior officer pushed a junior officer to help run a...

flag Report DMCA

Good stuff. Would use again.

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors