The two-factor leadership theories were started by the Ohio State Leadership Studies, begun in 1945, in which two factors were identified as being important to analyzing leadership behavior. These two factors are: Initiating Structure and Consideration. They are most frequently termed Task Orientation (TO) and Relationship Orientation (RO), respectively.

Initiating Structure (TO) refers to the leader's focus in such issues as establishing organizational patterns, channels of communications, decision making procedures, and organizational goals.

Consideration (RO) is the leader's focus in establishing and maintaining positive relations with the staff.

The idea is that leaders are generally either more task oriented or relationship oriented, and that this orientation results in leadership behaviors. Some theories see these orientations as situation specific, others see these orientations as more static. I suspect that it would depend on the person, but I tend to believe that all leaders have a general orientation that is basic to their personalities, yet good leaders are able to analyze the situation to be more or less TO or RO depending on the situation.

On the next page is the Management Grid developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton. Note that on the vertical axis is the dimension Concern for People (RO), and that Concern for Production (TO) is on the horizontal axis. For any leader these two concerns interact with one another, and depending on the situation, result in actions. Blake and Mouton believed that the best pattern of leadership is the Team Management position of 9,9 on the chart, which is maximum concern for both people and production. This chart can be used as a self-analysis of one's own TO or RO when leading, and it can also serve as a self-improvement tool. Have you ever worked for a 1,9 manager or a 9,1 manager? I hope not. I especially hope you aren't working for one right now.

Below is William Reddin's "3-D Theory of Leadership" model. This isn't as complicated as it looks. Focus on the center box first. You will first note that the vertical axis is the RO dimension and the horizontal axis is the TO dimension, just as in the Mangement Grid. Also similar to Blake and Mouton's model, there are four identified leadership styles: Separated, Dedicated, Related, and Integrated. These are equivalent to Blake and Mouton's 1,1 style, 9,1 style, 1,9 style, and 9,9 style respectively. The difference in the two theories is that Reddin believes the effectiveness of a particular style depends on the situation and how the leader implements TO or RO. In the box at the top right are more effective styles, while the box at the bottom left are deemed ineffective styles. Since we all behave on a continuum of RO or TO depending on the situation, we can either be more or less effective in any given situation. For example, someone that is mostly related, can either behave like the Missionary (Blake and Mouton's County Club Manager) or the Developer, one who is mostly concerned for people and developing them to their fullest potential.

Finally, we have the Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard "Situational Theory of Leadership." In this model, the leader's behavior depends on the follower's maturity level. Maturity is defined as the followers' skills and experience in dealing with a particular situation. To further define worker's maturity in performing a task, there are two inter-related factors: their skill and willingness to set high but realistic goals and their skill and willingness to take responsibility for the achievement of goals.

It is recognized that workers' maturity increases over time, and that one of the responsibilities of the leadership is to help develop the workers to increase the maturity level. It is also recognized that as the followers' maturity level increases, the leaders' behaviors move to increased RO and decreased TO.

Here is an example of how to read the model and apply it. Let's say that it has been mandated by the State of Florida that all schools will be tested according to the Sunshine State Standards, and that schools and teachers will be evaluated accordingly. Imagine a state doing such a thing? Of course, this is just hypothetical! As a school principal, we would judge the maturity of the teachers to implement this mandate. Looking at the model, we would initially place the teachers in M1, or low maturity along the bottom of the chart. M1 is related to Q1 leader behaviors. Therefore, the principal would be high TO and low RO. The principal states "the mandate has been stipulated; we have no choice; so here is what we will need to do and to learn." As the teachers learn and become more comfortable with implementing the mandate, they move further along the maturity scale, so that when they are at M3, the principal doesn't need to worry about the task as much (low TO), but still needs to be high RO. At this stage the principal will have a lot of contact with the staff about this issue, giving them a lot of positive strokes for their work. This is done until the principal is sure that the teachers are in total control of the mandate. When they reach M4, the principal no longer needs to worry about the issue. He or she simply lets the teachers implement the mandate, with low TO and RO for this particular issue, while of course continuing to monitor.

I really like this model. I believe it integrates the best ingredients of the 2-factor theories. It can be used effectively with the modern theories that you have read about in our textbook.