One theory I disagreed with was that of Frederick Fiedler. Through Fiedler 's theory, leaders are asked to think of their least preferred co-worker and rate that person on a multitude of traits using the Least Preferred Coworker questionnaire. A scale from 1-8 with opposing traits on each side is used to calculate the leader 's LPC score. An example LPC questionnaire can be seen in the attachment (Northouse, 2013). Fiedler believed that a low LPC score was indicative of a task-oriented leadership style, while a high LPC score indicated a people-oriented leadership style. Following Fiedler 's theory, leaders with high LPC scores would be most successful in situations with a medium level of favorability, and leaders with low LPC scores would
…show more content…
This theory suggests that the relationship leaders have with their followers is the key to understanding how leaders influence employees ("Leading People and Organizations", n.d.). A high quality LMX relationship is one where there is a trust-based relationship between the leader and subordinate. A low quality LMX relationship is one where there is a low level of trust and respect between the leader and subordinate. High quality LMX relationships ultimately lead to better performance, improved job satisfaction, and employee commitment. Low quality LMX relationships may cause subordinates to feel that their situation is unfair and that their work environment is poor. I found this theory interesting because I agree with much of what it entails and have experienced both a high quality and low quality LMX relationship with different supervisors. Now, I have the benefaction of enjoying a high quality LMX relationship with my direct supervisor. I can attest to the improved performance, job satisfaction, and employee commitment aspects of the theory because of this. When I had a low quality LMX relationship with another supervisor, I didn 't perform well because I felt my manager didn 't care either way. I was unhappy in my position and was actively seeking employment elsewhere. In the high quality LMX relationship that I currently have, I am happy in my position, I perform to the best of my abilities, and am committed to my job because I don 't want to disappoint my
This theory suggests that the relationship leaders have with their followers is the key to understanding how leaders influence employees ("Leading People and Organizations", n.d.). A high quality LMX relationship is one where there is a trust-based relationship between the leader and subordinate. A low quality LMX relationship is one where there is a low level of trust and respect between the leader and subordinate. High quality LMX relationships ultimately lead to better performance, improved job satisfaction, and employee commitment. Low quality LMX relationships may cause subordinates to feel that their situation is unfair and that their work environment is poor. I found this theory interesting because I agree with much of what it entails and have experienced both a high quality and low quality LMX relationship with different supervisors. Now, I have the benefaction of enjoying a high quality LMX relationship with my direct supervisor. I can attest to the improved performance, job satisfaction, and employee commitment aspects of the theory because of this. When I had a low quality LMX relationship with another supervisor, I didn 't perform well because I felt my manager didn 't care either way. I was unhappy in my position and was actively seeking employment elsewhere. In the high quality LMX relationship that I currently have, I am happy in my position, I perform to the best of my abilities, and am committed to my job because I don 't want to disappoint my