Fiedler (1967) proposed a contingency theory. Leader member relations: good or poor Task structure: high or low Position power: strong or weak

Mark scheme

Marking points from the official mark scheme (Oct/Nov 2020). The mark or mark type is shown in brackets.

1. [2] Contingency theories believe that the effectiveness of leadership depends (i.e. is contingent) upon the situation, and there are numerous factors, such as the nature of the task, leader's personality e.g. relationship-oriented or task-oriented and make-up of the group being led.
2. [2] Fiedler used the least-preferred co-worker (LPC) scale, a questionnaire with 16 negative through to positive items, where leaders are asked about the person with whom they least prefer to work.
3. [2] One item example: Unfriendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Friendly. This determines whether the leader is relationship-oriented (high LPC score) or task-oriented (low LPC score).
4. [2] Disadvantage: a least preferred co-worker should never know they have been 'chosen' as the LPC, but if they found out or other workers found out then it could lead a change in attitude toward that worker and possibly lead to bullying;
5. [2] Disadvantage: asking anyone about the least preferred co-worker isn't a very nice thing to do;
6. [2] Disadvantage: If workers used the LPC rather than leaders then workers may give more positive ratings to their co-workers; also possible is that more negative ratings might be given.
7. [4] The situational leadership approach argues that no single leadership style best fits all situations. Successful leaders are those who can adapt their leadership style to the group they are attempting to lead.
8. [4] Hersey and Blanchard suggested style is determined by leadership style (the way in which a leader takes into account individual differences in workers) and the maturity level of workers/followers (hence individual differences).
9. [4] Leadership styles (four styles) – Telling, Selling, Participating and Delegating: telling (directing): high task (giving specific direction), low relationship;
10. [4] Leadership styles: selling (coaching): high task (explaining directio), high relationship;
11. [4] Leadership styles: participating (supporting): low task, high relationship (sharing task decisions);
12. [4] Leadership styles: delegating: low task, low relationship (workers make task decisions);
13. [4] Maturity levels of workers (four levels) – High, Moderate (2 levels) and Low: high follower maturity and high task readiness = delegating style (workers capable and willing);
14. [4] Maturity levels of workers: low follower maturity and low task readiness = telling style (workers lack capability and are unwilling);
15. [4] Maturity levels of workers: low to moderate readiness = participating style (workers capable but unwilling/insecure);
16. [4] Maturity levels of workers: moderate to high readiness = selling style (workers lack capability but are willing).
17. [5] Useful: if the company owner can identify the best leadership style for their workers then the best person for the job can be appointed;
18. [5] Useful: if a leader (or manager) knows about styles then they can adapt their style to be a better leader/manager;
19. [5] Useful: if leaders are more effective then this has positive benefits for the workers perhaps resulting in more cohesive worker relationships;
20. [5] Useful: if leaders are more effective then production levels can be increased;
21. [5] Less useful: theories needs to be shown to be effective in practise and not all theories apply and so are less useful;
22. [5] Less useful: a leader/manager may have read about a theory and try to change style to be something they are not. This can have consequences for both leader and worker;
23. [5] Less useful: a leader may try to impose a style that isn't appropriate onto the way in which workers are treated. This would result in job dissatisfaction;
24. [5] Less useful: categorising workers into four maturity levels (for example) is good, but not all workers fit into just one category so the explanation is less useful.
25. [5] Conclusion: any appropriate conclusion drawn from the discussion that has been presented. (1 mark)