Questions: Leadership Theories

Question 1

Fiedler's contingency model differs from most other leadership theories because it assumes that...

• A. Leadership style can be easily trained and adapted to different situations
• B. A leader's style is relatively fixed, so effectiveness depends on matching the leader to a favorable situation
• C. Only relationship-oriented leaders are effective in any situation
• D. Follower characteristics are irrelevant to leadership effectiveness

Answer: (B)

Fiedler's model is distinctive because it treats leadership style (task-oriented vs. relationship-oriented, measured by the Least Preferred Coworker scale) as a stable trait that cannot be easily changed. Effectiveness depends on situational favorability (leader-member relations, task structure, position power). When the match between style and situation is poor, the solution is to change the situation — not to change the leader. Most other theories (e.g., path-goal, situational leadership) assume leaders can and should adapt their behavior.

Question 2

The trait approach to leadership was abandoned because research found no personality traits associated with leadership effectiveness.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: False

The trait approach was prematurely abandoned in the mid-20th century based on Stogdill's (1948) conclusion that traits alone do not guarantee leadership. However, modern meta-analyses (Judge et al., 2002) using Big Five personality measures show that extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness to experience are meaningful predictors of both leader emergence and effectiveness. Cognitive ability also predicts leadership outcomes. The trait approach was not wrong — it was under-theorized and under-measured with the instruments available at the time.

Question 3

What does Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory reveal that is missed by theories focusing on average leadership behavior?

Model answer: LMX theory reveals that leaders do not treat all followers uniformly. Instead, they develop different-quality relationships with different subordinates — high-quality exchanges (the 'in-group') characterized by trust, mutual obligation, and expanded roles, versus low-quality exchanges (the 'out-group') limited to formal contractual obligations. This means that characterizing a leader's 'style' as a single description misses the within-leader variability that shapes different followers' experiences and outcomes.

LMX theory explains why employees under the same leader can have dramatically different experiences. In-group members receive more resources, autonomy, and developmental opportunities; they reciprocate with greater effort and loyalty. Out-group members receive standard treatment per the employment contract. High-quality LMX relationships predict better performance, higher satisfaction, and lower turnover at the dyadic level — outcomes not captured by theories that treat leadership as a uniform behavior applied to all followers.