P a t h - G o a l L e a d e r s h i p T h e o r y

The Path-Goal model is a theory based on specifying a leader's  style  or behavior that best fits the employee and

work environment in order to achieve goals (House, Mitchell, 1974). The goal is to increase an employee's

motivation, empowerment, and satisfaction so that they become productive members of the organization.

Path-Goal is based on Vroom's (1964) expectancy theory  in which an individual will act in a certain way based on

the expectation that the act will be followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the

individual. The path-goal theory was first introduced by Martin Evans (1970) and then further developed by House

(1971).

The path-goal theory can best be thought of as a process in which leaders select specific behaviors that are best

suited to the employees' needs and the working environment so that they may best guide the employees through

their path in the obtainment of their daily work activities (goals) (Northouse, 2013).

While Path-Goal Theory is not an exact process, it generally follows these basic steps as shown in the graphic

below:

1. Determine the employee and environmental characteristics

2. Select a leadership style

3. Focus on motivational factors that will help the employee succeed

E m p l o y e e C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

Employees interpret their leader's behavior based

on their needs, such as the degree of structure they

need, affiliation, perceived level of ability, and

desire for control. For example, if a leader provides

more structure than what they need, they become

less motivated. Thus a leader needs to understand

their employees so they know how to best motivate

them.

Situational Leadership Theory The overall situational leadership approach suggests that the leader must act in a flexible manner to be able to diagnose the leadership style appropriate to the situation, and to be able to apply the appropriate style. Leaders are not a special breed or born,rather that individuals must develop their capabilities for leadership by serving in groupsthat are functional. Situational Leadership attempts to explain effective leadership within the context of thelarger situation in which it occurs. There are different theories that attempt to describe situational leadership, these includes:Fiedler’s Contingency Theory.House Path-Goal TheoryVroom and Yetton's Normative TheoryFieldler's contingency theory The situational contingency theory proposes that the effectiveness of a leader or theorganization, is contingent on two elements: the leaders’ motivational structures or leadership style and the degree to which the leadership situation provides the leader with control and influence over the outcomes. Two leadership styles were proposed: – Task-oriented.– Person-oriented. Whether the person-oriented or task-oriented is expected to be more effective depends on the favorableness of certain factors: – The favorableness of the leader-match relations.– The degree to which the tasks performed by the group were structured.– The leader’s position. Leadership styles and situational control can be matched either by changing the leader’spersonality or by changing the individual’ssituational control in order to affect organization or group performance. House’s Path-Goal Theory House suggests that the leader should make desired rewards available (goal) and clarify for the subordinate the kinds of behavior that will lead to the reward (path). The theory proposes four types of leader behavior and two situational variables. Four types of leader behavior: – Directive leadership- characterized by a leader who informs subordinates what is expected of them and provides specific guidance.– Supportive Leadership- characterized by a leader who is friendly and approachable and shows concerns for the status, well-being, and personal needs of the subordinates.– Achievement-oriented leadership- characterized by a leader who sets challenging goals, expected subordinates to perform at best, and shows confidence that subordinates will perform well.

– Participative leadership- characterized by a leader who consults with subordinates and asks for their suggestions before making a decision. The two situational variables are: – Subordinate characteristics- which includes ability (for esteem and self-actualization) and personality traits (authoritarianism, close-mindedness).– Task characteristics- which includes, simple versus difficult, stressful versus non-stressful, dull versus interesting, and safe versus dangerous tasks. Vroom and Yetton’s Normative Theory The normative theory offers guidelines on how decisions ought to be made in specific situations. Five decision-making methods ranging form highly autocratic to highly participative are identified. The appropriate method depends on the answer to seven questions relating to the problem being solved and subordinates involved. The first three protects the quality of the decision and final four enhance the subordinate acceptance.

Situational Contingency Theories: The trait and behavioural perspectives assume that leadership, by itself, has a

strong impact on outcomes. Another development in leadership thinking recognizes, however, that outcomes may be

more accurately predicted when leader traits and behaviours are considered in relation to situational contingencies—

other important aspects of the leadership situation. Toward this end, contingency theories of leadership such as those

proposed by Fred Fiedler (1967), Robert House (1971; 1996), and Hersey and Blanchard (1988; 2001) focus on

specific variables related to the environment that might determine which particular style of leadership is best suited

for the situation. According to these approaches, no leadership style is best in all situations. Success depends upon a

number of variables, including the leader’s preferred style, the capabilities and behaviours of the followers, and

aspects of the situation.

For example, according to House’s (1971) Path-Goal Theory, the most important activities of leaders are those

that clarify the paths to various goals of interest to subordinates. Such goals might include a promotion, a sense of

accomplishment, or a pleasant work climate. In turn, the opportunity to achieve such goals should promote job

satisfaction, acceptance of the leader, and high work effort. In this way, the effective leader forms a connection

between subordinates’ goals and the organization’s goals. The theory assumes that a leader’s key function is to

adjust his/her behaviours by providing what is missing in the situational contingencies, such as those in the work

setting. Aspects of the situation such as the nature of the task, the work environment, and subordinate attributes

(e.g., ability) determine the optimal amount of each type of leader behaviour (directive, supportive, achievement-

oriented, participative) for improving subordinate satisfaction and performance. A model of Path-Goal Theory is

depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Model of Path-Goal Theory of Leadership

House revised his theory in later years (House, 1996) and presented a reformulated path-goal theory of work unit

leadership. The reformulated theory specifies leader behaviours that enhance subordinate empowerment and

satisfaction and work unit and subordinate effectiveness. It addresses the effects of leaders on the motivation and

abilities of immediate subordinates and the effects of leaders on work unit performance.

i. Path-Goal theory of leadership

This theory has its origin from the expectancy theory of motivation its states that effective leaders influence

employees performance and satisfaction by ensuring that employees who perform their best have a higher degree of

need fulfilment than the employees who don’t perform as much.

 

Path goal theory advocates for servant leadership where leaders serve followers by understanding their needs and

facilitating their work performance. This is theory has withstood scientific critique better than the others (Mcshane S.&

Travaglione T page 472). Path goal leadership styles are directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-

oriented.

 

Directive – this type of leadership style provides the that the leader    instills   a sense of responsibility and has  clearly

drawn up what the manager expect of his subordinates and performance of subordinates is monitored and

appreciated where necessary through rewards of for meeting specified goals or may be facing disciplinary actions for

failing to meet certain criterion. Therefore the directive style is a task oriented sort of leadership.(Mcshane, S&

Travaglione page 474).

 

Supportive-  this Style is primarily to look out for employees’ well being. It is where a leader does not sit on the other

end of the desk expecting employees to reporting to him but rather he works alongside the employees and getting to

know them on personal basis and when employee are comfortable with their leader they perform better and the

communication barrier is broken and there is a flow of information needed to efficiently operate (Mcshane, S&

Travaglione page 473).

 

 Participative- this  Style of leadership encourages the subordinates to have a say in the decision making , the

subordinates make suggestions that managers considers when making critical decision which is a good thing

because there’s a sense of belonging in the work place (Mcshane, S& Travaglione page 473).

 

Achievement-oriented- This style focuses on the competence of employees so the managers set goal and then

evaluate employee performance (Mcshane, S& Travaglione page 473).

 

Contingencies of path goal theory

As a contingency theory the path goal suggest that each of the following leadership style will be effective in some

situations.

 

Locus of control- people with an internal locus of control believe that they have control over their work environment,

therefore this employees prefer achievement oriented and participative leadership.  (Mcshane, S & Travaglione page

474).

 

Team dynamics –Performance –oriented team norms is the result of directive leadership which  work hand in

hand   with  low  team cohesiveness. Whereas, high cohesiveness is backed up is supportive  leadership as a

substitute ,eg a leader may choose to use supportive leadership in times where an employees’ performance is as a

result of a loss of a loved one (Mcshane, S& Travaglione page 475).

 

Task Structure- the idea in this structure is to adopt means and ways that don’t just end up being ideas but

rather  procedures that will make an effective system. In doing so participative leadership is directly related to

employees that work under non-routine  because the lack  of rules and procedures gives them more discretion to

achieve challenging goals. Supportive leadership should be adopted    for employees in highly routine  and simple

jobs to help them to cope with the tedious nature of the work and lack of control over the pace of work(Mcshane, S&

Travaglione page 474).

 

Skills and experience - This is a combination of directive and leadership. Directive helps directive leadership to help

them know how to accomplish tasks and supportive leadership helps employees  to cope with the uncertainties of

unfamiliar work situations. Directive leadership is detrimental when employees are skilled and experienced  because

it introduces too much supervisory control   (Mcshane, S& Travaglione page 474).

 

 

ii. Fiedler’s contingency model

 This was the earliest contingency theory developed by Fred Fiedler and his associates. Biased on this model a

leaders effectiveness depends on whether a persons leadership style is appropriately matched to his situation

(Mcshane S.& Travaglione T page 476), this model suggested that the best way to lead depends on the influence and

the degree of power a leader posses in a given circumstance. Below is a table summarising findings of Fielder’s

Contingency theory of leadership

 

Task-motivated and socio-

independent leaders perform

best when they have the most

control (highly favourable).                                <AMOUNT OF SITUATIONAL CONTROL BY LEADER>

High

 

 

 

a. leader-member relations are

good.

b. Task is well structured.

c. leader has high position

power.

Relationship-motivated

leaders perform best when they

have moderate control

(moderately favourable)

 

Moderate    A combination of favourable and unfavourable factors.

Task motivated leaders perform

best when they have low control

(highly unfavourable).

 

Low    

a. Leader-member relations are poor.

b. Task is poorly structured.

c. Leader has low position power.

(DuBrin& Ireland, page 283).

 

It’s not easy to identify effective and ineffective leaders. Fiedler suggests that’s leader perform better in some situations but not

all the time. Therefore effectiveness of a leader can be improved by changing the situation to match his or her leadership style.

This can be by changing the contingencies.

 

Fiedler has gained considerable respect for his contribution on leadership knowledge. However his leadership theory has been

gained numerous critics. This is because the theory only considers two leadership styles while other theories suggest that

there are more complex and realistic array of behaviour options. Evidence has show that Training and experience are also

factors that strongly affects leadership.

 

iii. Situational leadership model

This is the most common contingency theory among trainers. It was developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard,

and states that effective leaders will vary their style with the readiness off the followers this model also identifies four

leadership style- delegating, selling, participating and selling. Leader member relations, task structure, and position

power

 

Leader member relations-  this the extend to which a leader is supported and accepted  by his group members

 

Task structure-This is the extend to which a leader knows what to do in a given situation.

 

Position power- This is the extend to which an organization gives a leader the means to punish and reward  group

members, and get the job done.