The Fiedler Model
Fiedler’s Contingency Theory shows the relationship between the leader’s orientation or style and group performance under differing situational conditions. The theory is based on determining the orientation of the leader (relationship or task), the elements of the situation (leader-member relations, task structure, and leader position power), and the leader orientation that was found to be most effective as the situation changed from low to moderate to high control. Fiedler found that task oriented leaders were more effective in low and moderate control situations and relationship oriented managers were more effective in moderate control situations

LPC and Situational Factors

Fiedler identified the a Least Preferred Co-Worker scoring for leaders by asking them first to think of a person with which they worked that they would like least to work with again, and then to score the person on a range of scales between positive factors (friendly, helpful, cheerful, etc.) and negative factors (unfriendly, unhelpful, gloomy, etc.). A high LPC leader generally scores the other person as positive and a low LPC leader scores them as negative.
High LPC leaders tend to have close and positive relationships and act in a supportive way, even prioritizing the relationship before the task. Low LPC leaders put the task first and will turn to relationships only when they are satisfied with how the work is going.
Three factors are then identified about the leader, member and the task, as follows:
Leader-member relations: The regard with which the leader and the group members hold one another determines, in part, the ability of the leader to influence the group and the conditions under which he or she can do so. A leader who is accepted by the group members is in a more favorable situation than one who is not.
Task structure: Factors that determine task structure are 1) can a decision be demonstrated as correct, 2) are the requirements of the task understood by everyone, 3) is there more than one way to accomplish the task, and 4) is there more than one correct solution. If the group’s task is unstructured, and if the leader is no more knowledgeable that the group about how to accomplish the task, the situation is unfavorable.
Leader position power: Position power is determined at its most basic level by the rewards and punishments which the leader officially has at his or her disposal for either rewarding or punishing the group members on the basis of performance. The more power the leader has, the more favorable the situation.

The best LPC approach depends on a combination of the three. Generally, a high LPC approach is best when leader-member relations are poor, except when the task is unstructured and the leader is weak, in which a low LPC style is better.

# | Leader-Member Relations | Task structure | Leader's Position- power | Most Effective leader | 1 | Good | Structured | Strong | Low LPC | 2 | Good | Structured | Weak | Low LPC | 3 | Good | Unstructured | Strong | Low LPC | 4 | Good | Unstructured | Weak | High LPC | 5 | Poor | Structured | Strong | High LPC | 6 | Poor | Structured | Weak | High LPC | 7 | Poor | Unstructured | Strong | High LPC | 8 | Poor | Unstructured | Weak | Low LPC |

Leader Orientation

This approach seeks to identify the underlying beliefs about people, in particular whether the leader sees others as positive (high LPC) or negative (low LPC). The neat trick of the model is to take someone where it would be very easy to be negative about them.
This is another approach that uses relationship- vs. task-focus as a major categorization of the leader's style :
Relationship Orientated: (LPC score of 73 and above) Generally, high LPC leaders are more concerned with personal relations, more sensitive to the feelings of others, and better off at heading off conflict. They use their good relations with the group to get the job done. They are better able to deal with the complex issues in making decisions.
In high control situations, they tend to become bored and are no longer challenged. They may seek approval from their superiors ignoring their subordinates, or they may try to reorganize the task. As a result, they often become inconsiderate toward their subordinates, more punishing, and more concerned with performance of the task.
In moderate control situations, they focus on group relations. They reduce the anxiety and tension of group members, and thus reduce conflict. They handle creative decision making groups well. They see this situation as challenging and interesting and perform well in it.
In low control situations, they become absorbed in obtaining group support often at the expense of the task. Under extremely stressful situations, they may also withdraw from the leadership role, failing to direct the group’s work.
Task Oriented: (LPC score of 64 and below) Generally, low LPC leaders are more concerned with the task, and less dependent on group support. They tend to be eager and impatient to get on with the work. They quickly organize the job and have a no-nonsense attitude about getting the work done.
In moderate control situations, they tend to be anxious and less effective. This situation is often characterized by group conflict, which low LPC leaders do not like to handle. They become absorbed in the task and pay little attention to personal relations in the group. They tend to be insensitive to the feelings of their group members, and the group resents the lack of concern.
In high control situations, they tend to relax and to develop pleasant relations with subordinates. They are easy to get along with. As the work gets done, they do not interfere with the group or expect interference from their superiors.
In low control situations, they devote themselves to their challenging task. They organize and drive the group to task completion. They also tend to control the group tightly and maintain strict discipline. Group members often respect low LPC leaders for enabling them to reach the group’s goals in difficult situations..

Dhirubhai Ambani as a Relationship-oriented Leader
Dhirubhai Ambani adopted an 'open door policy' while dealing with his employees. People could just walk up to him and discuss their problems and he would give them a kind ear and discuss it with them. He had a quality of making people feel wanted. His signature style, was that of an 'arm-around-shoulder' which gave a morale boost to his employees, assuring them that they belonged and always have his trust. This tendency that he had to draw people had manifested in many ways. This was just one of them. He followed the belief of leaving professionals up to their own work without interfering with them. He was always a safety net for his team.

Vroom Leader Participation Model
The manner in which a leader goes about making a decision can involve as many choices as the decision itself. Sometimes the leader has to take charge and other times makes a better decision using group consensus.
Making good decisions is one of the main leader tasks. Part of doing this is to determining the most efficient and effective means of reaching the decision. One cannot make an autocratic decision knowing team acceptance is crucial for a successful outcome; nor would one to involve the team in every decision making process, since it is an ineffective use of time and resources. What this means is that one has to adapt the leadership style to the situation and decision one is facing. Autocratic styles work some of the times, highly participative styles work at other times, and various combinations of the two work best in the times in between.
The Vroom(-Yetton-Jago)Leader Participation Model provides a useful framework for identifying the best leadership style to adopt for the situation the leader faces. The Basic Principle
The underlying assumption of the Vroom(-Yetton-Jago) Leadership Models is that no one leadership style or decision making process fits all situations.
By analyzing the situation and evaluating the problem based on time, team buy-in, and decision quality, a conclusion about which style best fits the situation can be made. The model defines a very logical approach to which style to adopt and is useful for managers and leaders who are trying to balance the benefits of participative management with the need to make decisions effectively.

Understanding The Model
There are certain important factors to be considered, while deciding style of decision making. The quality of the decision and the manner of implementation, are components of decision effectiveness. Quality refers to the analytical aspect of the decision. A high-quality decision is one in which the action chosen is consistent with the goals of the organization and with potentially available information about the probabilities of actions leading to the attainment of these goals. Implementation of the decision is influenced by the degree to which group members understand and support the decision. Apart from decision effectiveness, there are two other consequences of participation identifiable. Participation slows down the decision making process. The elapsed time required to make the decision generally increases with amount of participation. This is of particular importance in emergency situations where rapid action is a crucial component of success. In addition, group meetings, particularly those seeking consensus among divergent views, can take endless hours, leaving proportionally less time available for implementing decisions or meeting the other requirements of one’s job - employee commitment. These aspects of time represent potential costs of the participative side of the decision making spectrum. While participative decision processes consume time, they may increase human capital. It can provide a training ground in which people can think through the implications of decisions in anticipation of a later time in which they may be responsible for making them. Participation can also perform a team-building function building positive relationships among group members and helping to meld them into a team. Finally, participation can aid in aligning the individual goals of group members with the goals of the organization. We consider these factors, time and development, to be components of the efficiency of the decision making process. In some situations, increased participation may jeopardize decision quality instead of enhancing it. There are occasions in which participation may elicit destructive conflict that will weaken teams rather than build them. And there are situations where decisiveness on the part of the leader is welcomed to a far greater degree than the opportunity to participate in the process. Leadership Style | Description | Decide or Autocratic l (Al) | Leader solves the problem along using information that is readily available to him/her | Facilitator or Autocratic 2 (A2) | Leader obtains additional information from group members, then makes decision alone. Group members may or may not be informed. | Consult Individually or Consultative l (C1) | Leader shares problem with group members individually, and asks for information and evaluation. Group members do not meet collectively, and leader makes decision alone. | Consult Group or Consultative 2 (C2) | Leader shares problem with group members collectively, but makes decision alone | Delegate or Group 2 (G2) | Leader meets with group to discuss situation. Leader focuses and directs discussion, but does not impose will. Group makes final decision. |

To determine which of these styles and processes is most appropriate, there is a series of yes & no questions that you ask yourself about the situation, and building a decision tree based on the responses. There are seven questions in total. These are:

1. Is the technical quality of the decision very important? Meaning, are the consequences of failure significant? 2. Does a successful outcome depend on your team members' commitment to the decision? Must there be buy-in for the solution to work? 3. Do you have sufficient information to be able to make the decision on your own? 4. Is the problem well-structured so that you can easily understand what needs to be addressed and what defines a good solution? 5. Are you reasonably sure that your team will accept your decision even if you make it yourself? 6. Are the goals of the team consistent with the goals the organization has set to define a successful solution? 7. Will there likely be conflict among the team as to which solution is best?

In general, a consultative or collaborative style is most appropriate when: * The leader need information from others to solve a problem. * The problem definition isn't clear. * Team members' buy-in to the decision is important. * The leader have enough time to manage a group decision.

An autocratic style is most efficient when: * The leader has more expertise on the subject than others. * The leader is confident about acting alone. * The team will accept the leader's decision. * There is little time available.

There are two such models developed, Time-Driven Model and Development-Driven Model. The time-driven matrix is intended for situations in which time is important and development is not a consideration. Likewise, the development-driven matrix is intended where there is abundant slack time and one wishes to invest in the development of the group.
Sometimes the two matrices yield identical recommendations. When they differ, the development-driven model recommends a more participative process. If the two recommended processes do not represent adjacent points on the scale of participation, it means that the intermediate processes are also acceptable although not the fastest or the most developmental.

Dhirubhai Ambani as a Facilitator