Fiedler's Contingency Theory of Leadership: An application of the meta-analysis procedures of Schmidt and Hunter.

Abstract

The present review was designed to apply the Schmidt and Hunter meta-analysis procedures to the available literature on Fiedler's Contingency Theory of Leadership. In the present instance, this involved the quantification of the variance in correlations between leader style and performance that can be explained by sampling error. To the extent that the variance in these results across studies can be explained by sampling error, moderator variables, including situational favorability, would be unnecessary theoretical constructions. To the extent that the variance in study results cannot be explained by sampling error, the possibility of one or more moderators exists. Separate meta-analyses were conducted for those studies that led to the specification of the Contingency Theory and those conducted specifically to test the theory. Results suggested that the Contingency Theory was appropriately induced from the studies on which it was based. With regard to those studies conducted specifically to test the Contingency Theory, however, less supportive evidence resulted. Although the theory was supported for all octants except Octant II within the lab data set, only four of the eight octants produced supportive evidence within the field data set. In these instances, the evidence suggests that additional variables need to be specified to account more fully for the variance within those octants that cannot be explained by sampling error alone. Peters, Department of Administrative Sciences, Southern actenzed, on the basis of their scores on the

A meta-analysis of relationships between organizational characteristics and IT innovation adoption in organizations

“…This indicates that the study requires the examination of moderator effect. Peters et al [60] has suggested that the moderator effect should be performed if the sampling error variance is less than 60% of the observed variance. For every organizational attribute that showed a sampling error variance of less than 60% of observed variance, we introduced four moderating conditions and performed a meta-analysis.…”

A Social Identity Theory of Leadership

“…In the 1960s, drawing on a third strand of research that described the actual behavior of leaders (e.g., Bales, 1950;Lippitt & White, 1943;Stogdill, 1974), Fiedler (1965Fiedler ( , 1971) introduced an interactionist model; the leadership effectiveness of a particular behavioral style is contingent on the favorability of the situation to that behavioral style. Fiedler's contingency theory is generally reasonably well supported (e.g., Strube & Garcia, 1981) despite some continuing controversy (e.g., Peters, Hartke, & Pohlmann, 1985).…”

Leadership experience and leadership performance.

“…This theory predicts that task-motivated leaders perform best in highand low-control situations while relationship-motivated leaders perform best in moderate-control situations (see meta-analyses by Strube & Garcia, 1981;Peters, Hartke, & Pohlmann, 1985). Experience increases situational control since job methods become more routine and outcomes more predictable (see Fiedler, 1966;1967;Fiedler & Garcia, 1987).…”