Empirical research shows that neither leadership training nor experience increases organizational performance. These disappointing results can be explained by the Contingency Model. This theory postulates that task motivated low esteem for the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) leaders perform best in very favorable and unfavorable situations while relationship--motivated (high LPC) leaders perform best in situations of intermediate favorableness. It has been assumed that training in the job's technical aspects and in handling interpersonal relations will make a leader more effective. In contrast, the Contingency Model holds that we must see training as improving the favorableness of the leadership situation. Therefore, in very favorable and unfavorable situations, training and experience will improve the performance of low LPC leaders but decrease performance of high LPC leaders. In intermediate situations training should increase the performance of high LPC leaders but decrease that of low LPC leaders. This hypothesis is supported by data from previous studies as well as 2 recent studies which specifically tested this hypothesis. (Author)