No abstract

No abstract

Computer simulations were used to assess disagreements in classifying leadership situations when Fiedler's contingency model of leadership was compared with LEADER MATCH, a training program purported to be based on that model. Each simulation generated 100,000 hypothetical leadership situations, using varying assumptions about the properties of LEADER MATCH scales. Even under the most favorable set of assumptions, the results revealed that the instruments used in LEADER MATCH can be expected to classify almost one fourth of those using it in a manner inconsistent with the contingency model. The causes of this nonequivalency between theory and application, as well as its consequences, are discussed. This research was begun while the senior author was on leave at the University of Linz (Austria). Grateful appreciation is expressed to Gerhard Reber.

The assumptions used by Jago and Ragan (1986) are defended in response to the Chemers and Fiedler (1986) reply. The additional assumptions suggested by Chemers and Fiedler are nonetheless tested. Although the original study reported that as many as one fourth to one third of trainees may be classified in LEADER MATCH in a manner inconsistent with the contingency model on which that training is based, the Chemers and Fiedler assumptions suggest the number of such nonequivalencies to be more than 60%. The original Jago and Ragan study conservatively underestimated rather than overestimated the problems in LEADER MATCH.

No abstract