The trouble with {leader match} is that it doesn't match Fiedler's contingency model

Assessed disagreements in classifying leadership situations when F. E. Fiedler's (1964) contingency model of leadership was compared with Leader Match (LM), a training program purported to be based on that model, using computer simulations. Each simulation generated 100,000 hypothetical leaders...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of applied psychology 1986-11, Vol.71 (4), p.555-559
Main Authors: Jago, Arthur G., Ragan, James W.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Computer Simulation
Human
Leadership
Management Training
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Assessed disagreements in classifying leadership situations when F. E. Fiedler's (1964) contingency model of leadership was compared with Leader Match (LM), a training program purported to be based on that model, using computer simulations. Each simulation generated 100,000 hypothetical leadership situations, using varying assumptions about the properties of LM scales. Results reveal that the instruments used in LM 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. (15 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
ISSN:0021-9010
1939-1854
DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.71.4.555