associates at Harvard (Bales, 1958), members of the Ohio State Leadership Center (Stogdill & Coons,
1957) and members of the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan (Kahn et al.,
1960; Likert, 1961). Research conducted within this stream became known as the ³behavioral ́ school
of leadership.
One of the major empirical contributions from the behavioral school was the identification of two
broad classes of leader behaviors, i.e. task-oriented and people-oriented behaviors, which were
identified by repeated factor analyses conducted by the Ohio State group, interviews by the Michigan
group, and observation of emergent leaders in laboratories by the Harvard group. ³The fundamental
dichotomy between task- and people-oriented behavior has been dominant across multiple
interpersonal and social exchange theories of leadership ́(Zaccaro & Horn, 2003, p.771). A leader
who is high in task-orientation provides goals, standards, directions and schedules for his or her
subordinate(s). A leader who is high in people-consideration shows concern and respect for
subordinates, looks out for their welfare and expresses appreciation and support (Stogdill, 1950).
4.2.3 CONTINGENCY THEORIES
In an attempt to more precisely define the effects of leadership and account for more variance in
empirical studies of leader effectiveness, scholars in the 1960s and 1970s turned to contingency
theories that took into account situational factors acting as potential constraints or opportunities for
leaders. Fiedler's contingency theory was among the first to attempt to reconcile previous inconsistent
findings regarding leader traits and behaviors (Fiedler, 1964, 1967). He posited that leadership
effectiveness depends on the interaction of leadership style with features of the situation he referred to
DV³VLWXDWLRQDOIaYRUDEOHQHVV ́%DVHGRQWKHOHDVWSUHIHUUHGFR-worker (LPC) score, a person would
either be categorized as a task- or relationship-oriented leader. Situational favorableness was
considered high when leader±member relations, task structure and/or position power were high. Under
these circumstances, a leader presumably is supported by the situation because it provides some
influence and potential power. Fiedler argued that task-oriented leaders would be more effective in
highly favorable or highly unfavorable situations, while relationship-oriented leaders would be more
effective in moderately favorable situations. Thus, rather than arguing that a certain style (e.g.,
relationship orientation) is better at all times (as in the trait and behavioral theories), Fiedler
acknowledged that the effectiveness of certain styles can depend on the environment in which they are
embedded.