Directive leadership is characterized by leaders taking decisions into their own hands and expecting followers to simply follow instructions. We've all been in one of those groups where someone wants to be Adolf and control everything, right? Last but not least, participative leadership, which is my favorite, where the leader involves the group in setting goals to provide input and share feedback with each other. The next theory completely opened my eyes. Dependencies for effective leadership are defined as situations in which a mix of factors controls and influences productivity. Contingency theory used the LPC to measure a leader's motivation and task motivation versus relationship motivation. Relationship-motivated people have an inclination to describe their less favored partners more optimistically, pleasantly, and efficiently and also received higher LPC scores. Task-motivated people have a tendency to evaluate their less favored associates more negatively. Therefore, they receive lower LPC scores. Therefore, the LPC scale is not really about the least desired coworker. In reality, what matters is the person taking the test and the type of motivation of this person. This got me thinking: What kind of LPC am I? Apparently my relationship with the leading members is good, my task structure was unstructured, and the power of my leadership position is strong. Also, my LPC was low. I don't consider myself the absolute leader, but in my opinion I have a large following. I believe that leaders can lead more effectively when there is a match between the type of motivation and the situation. These correspondences exist between a task and a relationship-motivated leader. When a leader and the situation don't match, many things need to be changed. From