Fiedler and Chemers Revisted; Understanding the Implications of the Least Preferred Co-worker Scale

K.R. Howell^1,

¹Department of Art, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina, USA

Cite this paper:
K.R. Howell. Fiedler and Chemers Revisted; Understanding the Implications of the Least Preferred Co-worker Scale. Journal of Business and Management Sciences. 2018; 6(3):82-85. doi: 10.12691/jbms-6-3-3

Abstract

The importance of succession planning and choosing the right candidate for the job cannot be underestimated. Having a conceptual framework for clear and honest evaluation of a candidate for an open position is a key factor in choosing the “best” one. Fiedler and Chemers work provides one matrix for determining a fit in terms of their Least Preferred Co-Worker scale. It is easy to check off minimum thresholds for education and experience. The evaluation of “fit” for the job is subjective and often laborious task. While many factors contribute to the success of a person in their job, the idea of knowing the best fit for a given situation is a credible and many times key assessment in selecting the eventual employee. The aim of this paper is to immerse the participants in a situation where they must determine the overall environment through the lens of Fiedler and Chemers’ Contingency Theory and select a new leader for the organization.

Keywords:
executive succession Least Preferred Co-worker contingency theory leadership

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	DA CRUZ, MP; NUNES, AS; PINHEIRO, PG. Fiedler's Contingency Theory: Practical Application of the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) Scale. IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior. 10, 4, 7, Oct. 2011. ISSN: 0972687X.
[2]	Fiedler, F. E., Chemers, M. M. and Mahar, L. (1976) Improving Leadership Effectiveness: The Leader Match Concept, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
[3]	FUSCH, PI; FUSCH, GE. Leadership and Conflict Resolution on the Production Line. International Journal of Applied Management & Technology. 14, 1, 21, Jan. 2015. ISSN: 15444740.
[4]	Northouse, P. G., (2012) Leadership: Theory and Practice 6th Edition (Chapter 6).
[5]	KESSLER, EH. Encyclopedia of Management Theory. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc, 2013. ISBN: 9781412997829.
[6]	MITCHELL, TR; et al. The Contingency Model: Criticism and Suggestions. Academy of Management Journal. 13, 3, 253, Sept. 1970. ISSN: 00014273.
[7]	NWAGBARA, U. Managing Organizational Change: Leadership, Tesco, and Leahy's Resignation. E Journal of Organizational Learning & Leadership. 9, 1, 56, 2011. ISSN: 21548927.
[8]	OC, B. Contextual leadership: A systematic review of how contextual factors shape leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly. 29, 218-235, Feb. 1, 2018. ISSN: 1048-9843.
[9]	WATERS, RD. The role of stewardship in leadershipApplying the contingency theory of leadership to relationship cultivation practices of public relations practitioners. Journal of Communication Management. 17, 4, 324, Nov. 2013. ISSN: 1363254X.
[10]	WANG, G; HARMS, P; MACKEY, J. Does it take two to Tangle? Subordinates' Perceptions of and Reactions to Abusive Supervision. Journal of Business Ethics. 131, 2, 487, Oct. 2015. ISSN: 01674544.