Skip to content
MarkSchemeMarkScheme
Sign up — no card

9990 · 4.2.1

Traditional and modern theories of leadership — practice questions

Practice and worked examples for 9990 Traditional and modern theories of leadership. Short previews only — attempt the full question in MarkScheme against the official scheme.

Worked example 1

Two department heads lead identical restructuring projects. Alex is task-focused and directive; Sam builds consensus and supports staff emotionally. Alex succeeds in a crisis with clear deadlines; Sam succeeds when staff morale was already low. Evaluate using behavioural and contingency theories.

Show solution outline

Ohio State / Michigan: Alex shows high initiating structure (production-centred); Sam high consideration (employee-centred). Behavioural theory shows both dimensions matter but neither leader is universally superior.

Fiedler: Crisis restructuring = high task structure, urgent deadline = favourable for task-oriented Alex. Low morale = poor leader-member relations = situation favouring relationship-oriented Sam (high LPC).

Trait theory limitation: Both may share traits (intelligence, confidence) yet succeed in different contexts — traits alone cannot explain outcomes.

Evaluation: Contingency models improve prediction but LPC is controversial (measuring style via disliked colleague is indirect). Modern leadership emphasises flexibility (see 4.2.2) rather than fixed fit. Gender and culture bias early trait lists.

Worked example 2

Priya is a project manager for a new software development project. Her team respects her expertise, so leader-member relations are good (rated 8/10). The project involves creating a novel algorithm, so the task is highly unstructured (rated 2/10). As a junior manager, Priya has little formal authority over promotions or bonuses, giving her weak position power (rated 3/10). Priya's score on the Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) scale is 75. Using Fiedler's Contingency Theory, analyse the situation and predict Priya's effectiveness.

Show solution outline
  1. Analyse the Situation: We must determine the situational favourableness using Fiedler's three variables.
    • Leader-Member Relations: Good (rated 8/10)
    • Task Structure: Low (rated 2/10)
    • Position Power: Weak (rated 3/10)
  2. Classify the Situation: This combination of 'Good' relations, 'Low' structure, and 'Weak' power corresponds to Octant IV in Fiedler's model. This is classified as a situation of moderate favourableness.
  3. Analyse the Leader's Style: Priya's LPC score is 75. A high LPC score (typically considered to be >64) indicates a relationship-oriented leader.
  4. Match Leader to Situation: Fiedler's theory predicts that relationship-oriented (high-LPC) leaders are most effective in situations of moderate favourableness. Task-oriented (low-LPC) leaders are predicted to be more effective in very favourable or very unfavourable situations.
  5. Conclusion: Since Priya is a high-LPC (relationship-oriented) leader and the situation is moderately favourable (Octant IV), the theory predicts she will be an effective leader for this project. Her leadership style is a good match for the situational demands.
Mark a 9990 question on this topicFull lessonOpen in course studio