|
" A critical evaluation of Fiedler's predictor measures of leadership effectiveness "
Hosking, Dian Marie
| Document Type
|
:
|
Latin Dissertation
|
| Record Number
|
:
|
1096572
|
| Doc. No
|
:
|
TLets459710
|
| Main Entry
|
:
|
Hosking, Dian Marie
|
| Title & Author
|
:
|
A critical evaluation of Fiedler's predictor measures of leadership effectiveness\ Hosking, Dian Marie
|
| College
|
:
|
University of Warwick
|
| Date
|
:
|
1978
|
| student score
|
:
|
1978
|
| Degree
|
:
|
Ph.D.
|
| 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.
|
| Subject
|
:
|
HD Industries. Land use. Labor
|
|
|
:
|
HM Sociology
|
| Added Entry
|
:
|
University of Warwick
|
| |