The theory has been the subject of a large amount of empirical study along with two meta-analyses (Ayman et al., 1995). Although both meta-analyses supported the theory; both provided recommendations for improving the theory (Ayman et al., 1995). One of the constant criticisms of Fiedler's contingency model theory research is that all studies have small sample sizes (Peters et al., 1985). The limited sample size makes it impossible to detect the true effects of correlations (Peters et al., 1985). Because the sample is small, there is no way to use the traditional meaning which allows for incomplete support of Fiedler's contingency model theory, regardless of what the results reveal (Peters et al., 1985). Another thing that Contingency Theory fails to explain is why leadership styles are effective in some situations and not in others (Northouse, 2013). According to Fiedler (1993), he called it the “black box problem” because it cannot be explained why task-motivated people are effective in extreme situations and relationship-motivated people are effective in moderate situations. According to Northouse (2013), the explanation of why they are effective is not adequate enough for critics. Another criticism is the application of contingency theory in the real world (Northouse, 2013). This is because it determines the leader's LPC scale and the three situational variables