In reference to Fiedler's presumption the following questions formed the crux of this study: (1) Is the implicit assumption of no significant differences in LPC Difficulty among different LPC's valid? (2) If respondents select LPC's with different LPC Difficulty values, would such values have any significant effects on their LPC scores? (3) If the LPC Difficulty values have significant effects on the LPC scores, could the effects be of such magnitude that respondents' leadership styles could be misclassified?With the discovery of such a rival hypothesis pivoting on the LPC Difficulty variable, which could reverse the predicted correlational directions prescribed by the Model, the following recommendations were made: (1) A standard LPC should be provided through a short narrative, or better through a video tape. Upon the LPC Difficulty value of the standard LPC, a nomological network should be used to identify the cutting scores for high and low LPC's; (2) Other leadership style measures should be used until an objective LPC Scale, which satisfies interpersonal validity requirements, is developed; and (3) Most of the unsupportable Contingency Model studies should be replicated with either an objective LPC Scale or other leadership style measures.Seven hypotheses were tested with 53 ROTC non-stereotypes who evaluated two standard LPC's and one subject-selected LPC by using Fiedler's current 18-item LPC Scale and an LPC Difficulty Scale developed by the researcher.Results of the hypotheses tested showed that LPC's have significant LPC Difficulty differences, which significantly affect the scores of respondents. Furthermore, the leadership styles of respondents were discovered to be susceptible to significant misclassification since the cutting scores do not take into consideration the LPC Difficulty differences among LPC's.Of central importance in Fiedler's Leadership Contingency Model is the LPC Scale, with which LPC scores are obtained for classifying the leadership orientations of respondents into either a low LPC (i.e., Task-motivated) leadership style or a high LPC (i.e., Relations-motivated) leadership style. The use of the LPC Scale for evaluating the respective respondent-selected LPC's, coupled with the interpretation of the LPC scores by Fiedler implicity presupposes that the degree to which the LPC's are actually difficult to work with (i.e., LPC Difficulty) is the same for all LPC's
