Leadership in action - high LPC vs low LPC leadership

According to Fiedler’s 1967 theory of the Contingency Model of Leadership, leader’s fall into different leadership styles based upon a scale he devised to assess effective leadership called the least-preferred coworker, (LPC), scale. According to Fiedler’s model there are high LPC leaders, those who focus on interpersonal relationships and draw their self-esteem from these relationships, and low LPC leaders, those who are task oriented and draw their self-esteem from the successful completion of tasks, (Nahavandi, pp. 70-71).
With her company’s focus on god and family before career, Mary Kay Ash was clearly a high LPC leader who concentrated on providing a matriarchal archetype for the employees of her company Mary Kay Cosmetics, (AIU Online, n.d.). Diametrically opposed to Mary Kay Ash, Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation was a low LPC leader, who was concerned with performance, competition, and innovation rather than with the work-life balance of his employees, (AIU Online, n.d.). Microsoft Corporation, especially under the leadership of Bill Gates, was noted for poor employee member relationships. In 1992 Gates replaced Michael Hallman, after less than two years of service because the two could simply not get along, with a three member team that included Steve Ballmer whom Gates trusted and had a history of being able to get along and communicate with Gates despite his brusque style, (Microsoft: three’s company, 1992). Additionally the article notes that while products are Microsoft’s strength, weak relationships are almost the hallmark of the corporation, and relationship building is left up to Steve Ballmer, (Microsoft: three’s company).

Under Fiedler’s model effective leadership is observable during a crisis situation and defined as situational control. Situational control arises from a combination of the following three factors in order of importance: 1. the relationship of the leader to the member, LMR, 2. how well structured the task is, TS, and 3. the leader’s position, or legitimate, power, PP. As leader-member relationships are the most important factor in the contingency model, with all other factors being equal, in a high situational control condition group performance under a leader with a high LPC and good LMR, like Mary Kay Ash, would outperform group performance under a leader with a low LPC, like Bill Gates, whose LMR was bad.

Both Mary Kay Ash and Bill Gates were highly task structured, as evidenced by Ash’s clear heavily goal oriented reward structure and Gates highly structured corporate environment. Additionally, both held the absolute ultimate power positions within their firms as evidenced by their strength as figureheads of their corporations. The chief difference in these two leaders lied in Ash’s ability to motivate and connect with her workforce through interpersonal relationships while Gate’s apparent lack of this aptitude. Each leader, however, was ultimately effective and successful because they understood their abilities and modeled their organizations to accommodate their styles: Mary Kay Ash maintained a highly accessible and nurturing role for her employees while Bill Gates maintained a heavily detailed task orientated role that concentrated on innovation and his own performance.

As I prefer a more task oriented environment and lifelong learning I believe I would have preferred working for Bill Gates. I find working on and completing projects invigorating, while generally I find interpersonal relationships at work, with the possible exception of mentoring relationships, tedious and enervating.

References:


Microsoft: three’s company. (1992, February 8). The Economist, 322 (7745), 72. Retrieved from ProQuest ABI/Inform

Nahavandi, A. (2006). The art and science of leadership (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.