A CRITIQUE OF LEADER MATCH AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR LEADERSHIP RESEARCH

It is argued that Fiedler and Mahar's (1979a) conclusion that Leader Match is a promising method for improving leadership effectiveness is unjustified. The core assumption of Leader Match is that congruence between leaders' LPC score and their situations accounts for a major proportion of the variance in group performance. This assumption does not seem sustainable in view of what we currently know about the determinants of group performance, and furthermore it has not been demonstrated by research using the Contingency model. Contingency model research has shown only that leadership style may affect productivity when a number of other structural/situational variables are controlled for. A brief review of empirical research using Leader Match indicates that evidence for the model is unconvincing because of the serious problem of identifying appropriate criteria of leader effectiveness and the prevalence of a number of alternative explanations for the results of many of the studies. The implications of this critique for leadership research in general are then considered.