The trouble with LEADER MATCH is that it doesn't match Fiedler's contingency model

Article 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. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

---

The trouble with assumptions: a reply to Jago and Ragan

Article Abstract:

Jago and Ragan (1986) conducted a computer simulation to model the assignment of leaders to the zones of situational control in the LEADER MATCH training program (Fiedler & Chemers, 1984; Fiedler, Chemers & Mahar, 1976). They found that in many cases, the zone of control to which a leader was assigned was different in the LEADER MATCH case than it would be using the dichotomization method of assignment used in Fiedler's (1967) early exposition of the model. The computer simulation was guided by a large number of incorrect assumptions, both theoretical and operational, that greatly reduce the meaningfulness of Jago and Ragan's findings. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

---

Some assumptions are more troubling than others: rejoinder to Chemers and Fiedler

Article Abstract:

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 percent. The original Jago and Ragan study conservatively underestimated rather than overestimated the problems in LEADER MATCH. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: The role of television in the construction of consumer reality. The influence of involvement on disaggregate attribute choice models
• Abstracts: More than meets the eye: the effect of missing information on purchase evaluations
• Abstracts: On the relationship between cognitive and affective processes: a critique of Zajonc and Markus. A meta-analysis of effect sizes in consumer behavior experiments
• Abstracts: The assessment of alternative measures of consumer expertise. Effects of initial product judgments on subsequent memory-based judgments
• Abstracts: Retooling data processing systems. Selecting hardware. Retooling data systems: overview

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.