Least preferred coworker scale

What Is the Least-Preferred Coworker Scale?

The Least-Preferred Coworker (LPC) Scale is a psychometric instrument used in the field of organizational behavior to determine an individual's leadership style. Developed by Fred Fiedler, a prominent figure in contingency theory of leadership, the scale assesses whether a leader is primarily task-oriented or relationship-oriented based on their subjective evaluation of the person with whom they could work least effectively. The underlying premise is that how a leader perceives a difficult subordinate reflects their fundamental motivational hierarchy.

History and Origin

The Least-Preferred Coworker Scale emerged as a cornerstone of Fred Fiedler's Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness, first introduced in his 1967 book, A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. Fiedler, an Austrian psychologist, sought to move beyond earlier trait and behavioral theories of leadership by proposing that leader effectiveness is not universal but contingent upon the situation.²⁵,²⁴ He posited that a leader's inherent personality traits and preferred leadership style are relatively fixed, making it crucial to match the leader to the favorability of the situation rather than attempting to alter the leader's fundamental style.²³ The LPC scale was his innovative tool for classifying these inherent styles.

Key Takeaways

• The Least-Preferred Coworker (LPC) Scale is a psychometric tool designed to identify a leader's inherent style as either task-oriented or relationship-oriented.
• A high LPC score suggests a relationship-oriented leader, who values interpersonal connections even with difficult colleagues.
• A low LPC score indicates a task-oriented leader, who prioritizes task accomplishment above all else, even when evaluating a difficult coworker.
• The LPC Scale is a key component of Fiedler's Contingency Model, which argues that effective leadership depends on matching the leader's style to the situational context.²²
• Critics note that the LPC scale's validity and the rigidity of its underlying assumptions about fixed leadership styles have been disputed.,²¹

Formula and Calculation

The Least-Preferred Coworker (LPC) Scale does not involve a mathematical formula in the traditional sense, but rather a summation of scores from a subjective assessment. To calculate an LPC score, an individual is asked to identify the person they have worked with least well—their least preferred coworker—and then rate that person on a series of bipolar adjective pairs.

A typical LPC questionnaire consists of 18 to 25 pairs of opposing adjectives, such as:

• Pleasant — Unpleasant
• Friendly — Unfriendly
• Supportive — Hostile
• Cooperative — Uncooperative
• Efficient — Inefficient
• Open — Guarded

Each pair is rated on an 8-point scale, where 1 typically represents the least favorable attribute and 8 represents the most favorable. For example, on the "Pleasant-Unpleasant" scale, 8 might be "Pleasant" and 1 "Unpleasant." The individual circles the number that best describes their least preferred coworker for each adjective pair.

The LPC score is then computed by totaling the numbers circled for all adjective pairs:

$\text{LPC Score} = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Rating}_i$

Where:

• (\text{Rating}_i) is the score for each adjective pair (i).
• (n) is the total number of adjective pairs in the scale (e.g., 18 to 25).

For example, if there are 18 adjective pairs and a person consistently rates their least preferred coworker with high scores (e.g., closer to 8 for favorable traits), their total LPC score would be high. Conversely, consistently low scores (closer to 1 for unfavorable traits) would result in a low LPC score.

Interpreting the LPC Score

The interpretation of the Least-Preferred Coworker (LPC) Scale score is central to Fiedler's Contingency Model. The score categorizes a leader into one of two primary leadership style orientations:

• High LPC Score (typically 73 or above): A high score indicates a relationship-oriented leader. This means that even when describing a person they found difficult to work with, the leader can still identify positive qualities in that individual. This suggests that the leader prioritizes interpersonal relationships, group dynamics, and maintaining a positive work environment, even if it means compromising on task efficiency.,
• Low LPC S²⁰core (typically 64 or below): A low score signifies a task-oriented leader. These leaders describe their least preferred coworker in strongly negative terms, focusing on their inability to perform the task effectively. This implies that the leader's primary concern is task accomplishment, productivity, and clear goal achievement, often at the expense of interpersonal considerations.,

Leaders with s¹⁹cores between these ranges (e.g., 65-72) are often considered a mixture of both styles, and their dominant orientation might require further subjective determination. This interpreta¹⁸tion is then used within Fiedler's model to determine which type of leader is most effective in various situations, based on factors like leader-member relations, task structure, and position power.

Hypothetical Example

Consider a project manager, Alex, who needs to understand their natural leadership style to better manage their diverse team. Alex decides to take the Least-Preferred Coworker Scale.

Alex is instructed to think of the coworker with whom they could work least well. Alex recalls a former colleague, "Ben," who frequently missed deadlines and often challenged team decisions, making project progress difficult.

Alex then rates Ben on a series of bipolar adjectives:

• Pleasant (8) to Unpleasant (1): Alex rates Ben a "3" (somewhat unpleasant).
• Friendly (8) to Unfriendly (1): Alex rates Ben a "4" (neutral, slightly unfriendly).
• Supportive (8) to Hostile (1): Alex rates Ben a "2" (hostile).
• Cooperative (8) to Uncooperative (1): Alex rates Ben a "1" (very uncooperative).
• Efficient (8) to Inefficient (1): Alex rates Ben a "1" (very inefficient).
• ...and so on for all 18-25 adjective pairs.

After summing all the individual ratings, Alex's total LPC score is 55.

Interpretation: Since Alex's LPC score (55) falls below the typical threshold of 64, this indicates that Alex is primarily a task-oriented leader. This means Alex prioritizes project completion and efficiency, and tends to view individuals who hinder these goals (like Ben) in a strongly negative light, focusing on their failures in performance rather than their personal attributes. This insight can help Alex understand their natural approach to management and how it might impact team interactions.

Practical Applications

The Least-Preferred Coworker Scale, as part of Fiedler's Contingency Model, finds practical applications primarily in understanding and optimizing leadership style within organizations. While it is not a daily financial metric, its relevance lies in human resources and management contexts, which indirectly influence organizational effectiveness and, consequently, financial performance.

• Leader-Situation Matching: Organizations can use the LPC score to help place leaders in situations where their natural style is most likely to be effective. For example, a low-LPC (task-oriented) leader might be better suited for highly structured tasks and critical situations, such as emergency response teams or project teams with strict deadlines. Conversely, a high-LPC (relationship-oriented) leader might excel in ambiguous situations requiring strong teamwork and employee engagement, such as research and development teams or customer service departments.
• Leadershi¹⁷p Development: While Fiedler argued that leadership style is relatively fixed, understanding one's LPC score can foster self-awareness among managers. This self-awareness allows leaders to seek out roles or modify situational factors (like task structure or their positional power) to better suit their inherent style, rather than attempting to fundamentally change their personality traits.
• Team Comp¹⁶osition: Knowledge of team leaders' LPC scores can inform decisions about team composition, ensuring that leadership styles are aligned with the nature of the work and the group dynamics required. This strategic alignment can contribute to improved performance management and overall organizational efficiency.
• Conflict Resolution: By understanding the underlying motivation of task-oriented vs. relationship-oriented leaders, organizations can better anticipate potential conflicts and facilitate more effective decision-making strategies.

Limitations and Criticisms

Despite its influence in organizational behavior and leadership style theory, the Least-Preferred Coworker (LPC) Scale and Fiedler's Contingency Model have faced several criticisms:

• Fixed Leadership Style Assumption: A primary critique is Fiedler's assertion that a leader's inherent style, as measured by the LPC scale, is relatively static and difficult to change. Critics argue t¹⁵hat effective leaders can, and often do, adapt their approach based on situational demands, exhibiting flexibility that the model does not fully accommodate. This rigidity i¹⁴mplies that if a mismatch occurs, changing the leader or modifying the situation ("job engineering") is the only solution, rather than leader development.
• Validity of the LPC Scale: The construct validity of the LPC scale itself has been questioned. Researchers have debated whether the score accurately reflects a leader's true personality traits or simply their cognitive complexity in evaluating others. The subjective ¹³nature of the assessment and the potential for scores to vary based on an individual's mood or recent experiences are also points of contention.,
• Lack of ¹²F¹¹lexibility: The model's deterministic nature—that only certain leadership styles are effective in specific, rigidly defined situations—is seen as a limitation. Real-world management often requires a more nuanced and adaptive approach than the LPC scale and Fiedler's model suggest.
• Cultural Appl¹⁰icability: The LPC scale and Fiedler's model were developed and tested predominantly in Western contexts. Their universal applicability across diverse cultures, where leadership behaviors and organizational dynamics may differ significantly, is often debated.
• Empirical Sup⁹port Variations: While Fiedler and his associates provided substantial research to support the contingency theory, some scholars have found inconsistent or limited empirical support for certain aspects of the model and the LPC scale's predictive power.,

Least-Preferre⁸d⁷ Coworker Scale vs. Situational Leadership Theory

The Least-Preferred Coworker (LPC) Scale is integral to Fiedler's Contingency Theory, which often gets compared to other situational models, notably the Situational Leadership Theory (e.g., Hersey-Blanchard Model). While both theories emphasize that effective leadership depends on the situation, they differ fundamentally in their core assumptions and practical implications.

The key difference lies in flexibility: Fiedler posits leaders are largely unchangeable and situations must be matched to them, whereas Situational Leadership Theory suggests leaders can and should adjust their approach to suit the needs of their followers and the specific task at hand.

FAQs

What does a high LPC score mean?

A high Least-Preferred Coworker (LPC) score indicates that a leader is relationship-oriented. This means they tend to describe their least preferred coworker in relatively positive terms, suggesting they prioritize interpersonal connections, motivation, and maintaining good group dynamics even with difficult colleagues.

What does a low LPC score mean?

A low Least-Preferred Coworker (LPC) score suggests that a leader is task-oriented. Such leaders tend to describe their least preferred coworker in negative terms, indicating their primary focus is on task accomplishment, efficiency, and productivity, with less emphasis on interpersonal harmony.

Is the Least-Preferred Coworker Scale still used today?

While the Least-Preferred Coworker (LPC) Scale and Fiedler's Contingency Model remain foundational in the study of organizational behavior and are taught in academic settings, their direct application in contemporary human resources and management practices might be less widespread than more adaptive leadership models. Its assumptions about fixed leadership styles are often critiqued in today's dynamic work environments, which favor flexibility and leader development.

Can my LPC sco²re change over time?

According to Fred Fiedler's original theory, an individual's Least-Preferred Coworker (LPC) score reflects a relatively stable and inherent aspect of their personality traits, and therefore, it is considered difficult to change significantly over time. The model suggests ¹that instead of changing a leader's style, organizations should focus on matching the leader's natural style to the appropriate situation.