One of my first jobs was at a larger hotel chain call center in Orlando, Florida. Our job was to contact existing hotel patrons via telephone and get them to put a credit card deposit on a mini-vacation in one of two new time-share properties in Florida. The split floor comprised of two teams each having their respective team leader. Both leaders managed a group of approximately 20 subordinates, and they were there to support and motivate the staff during the shift from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm weeknights. In competition with each other, team leaders would track bookings on a large whiteboard in the middle of the room. Night after night, Christine’s team always closed the most deals. A look at the path-goal theory approach to leadership helps to explain Christine’s leadership success. First, we will look at the Path-Goal theory and its components then we will assess Christine’s behaviors in her leadership role.
Path-Goal Framework
Path-Goal Theory suggests that leaders should choose leadership styles that fit the needs of the subordinates. Leaders will provide rewards (the “goal”) and assist them in reaching the goal (the “path”) while offering support along the way (PSU WC, 2016, L.6, p. 12). As subordinates work towards achieving their goals, roadblocks that they encounter are expected to be resolved, in part, with the help of their leader to get back on track. The theory is based on a combination of leader behaviors, subordinate characteristics and task characteristics (PSU WC, 2016, L.6, p. 12.)
Leaders can behave in various ways in helping their subordinates in reaching their shared goal. According to this theory, leaders will employ four behaviors. A directive approach explains the process and sets performance expectations by which the followers should follow to reach the goal. Supportive leaders take care of the member’s needs to create an environment that the follower perceives is appealing, balanced and equitable. Participative leaders include their people in decision-making processes by gathering their opinions and ideas and will confer with their subordinates before making decisions (PSU WC, 2016, L.6, p. 13). Lastly, achievement-oriented leaders have high standards of achievement that will challenge and push their followers to perform at maximum level. Path-goal theory posits that leaders can employ any of these behaviors to suit the needs of the subordinates and the situation at play. This method affords leaders the ability to utilize one or all of these leadership behaviors at any given time (PSU WC, 2016, L.6, p. 13).
Subordinates under the umbrella of the path-goal construct focus on the satisfaction of the subordinates and the subordinates belief regarding their ability in the path towards a goal. These two variables influence how those followers perceive leader behaviors (PSU WC, 2016, L.6, p. 14). The “needs for affiliation, preference for structure, desires for control and self-perceived level of task ability” are some of the characteristics that determine the degree to which they find their leader’s behaviors useful or not (Northouse, 2016, p. 119).
The last piece to the Path-goal theory is the task. The job, the design of the task, the formal authority system, and the work group itself are intertwined, and all contribute to a followers motivation (Northouse, 2016). Different jobs require varying forms of leadership. If a task was clearly laid out, easy to follow and the followers were competent in performing the work then using an achievement oriented style in leadership could serve to push the team to even bigger and greater goals. However, if a directive approach is utilized in this same scenario, it would function as a debilitating one. Suggesting that leaders need to pick the appropriate behavior for the individual subordinate and the situation leads to a practical approach according to the Path-Goal theory. This list provides the suggested form of leadership a leader should employ based on the characteristics of the follower and the task (Northouse, 2016).
Directive Leadership: Provides guidance and psychological structure
Group Members: Dogmatic, Authoritarian
Task Characteristics: Ambiguous, Unclear Rules, Complex
Supportive Leadership: Provides Nurturance
Group Members: Unsatisfied, Need Affiliation, Need Human Touch
Task Characteristics: Repetitive, Unchallenging, Mundane, Mechanical
Participative Leadership: Provides Involvement
Group Members: Autonomous, Need for control, Need for clarity
Task Characteristics: Ambiguous, Unclear Rules, Unstructured
Achievement-Oriented Leadership: Provides challenge
Group Members:High expectations, Need to excel
Task Characteristics: Ambiguous, Challenging, Complex
Theory at work
The flexibility in this theory allows a leader to adjust his or her behaviors to each employee individually. In the call center, we were a mixed bunch of personalities and came with our skills and abilities. Many people did not stay in their positions much more than a few months, and new people were always coming onboard. My first few days I was nervous and doubted my ability to close a deal, and was unsure of the new job procedures. Path-Goal would stipulate that my leader needs to be directive in nature to provide me with specific instructions on how to perform in my new positions and to clarify what my goals were. Christine did just that. She spent the first few days playing close attention to me providing me with the direction, information and the support that I need to master the task.
After becoming proficient in my new position, and closing a good number of deals, the work became repetitive and sometimes discouraging as being hung up on was not uncommon. From experience, Christine knew that this was the typical pattern within her department as people gained more expertise in the sales process. To keep her team motivated Christine, in alignment with the suggestion of the Path-Goal theory, moved away from directive behaviors and adapted to use supportive actions to form a closer, personal connection with her team. She would check in on us a few times during the shift and would always say something to encourage us and make us feel good and like we were part of the larger team. Because of Christine’s leadership behaviors, even though the task and goal became less attractive at times, she was able to inspire and keep me motivated to work towards the goal.
Christine also had a knack for motivating the group when she knew we needed it most to succeed. Somedays you could just tell there was something in the air and we all needed a boost to perform at maximum capacity. To achieve this Christine used participative behaviors at the call-center as she needed to. During team competition days, our team would huddle just before our shift, and she would ask what our goals were for the night. We would collectively come up with a number that we wanted to hit for the evening and then would negotiate what our immediate rewards would be for reaching them. On the spot rewards for bookings could earn movie or restaurant gift cards, hotel merchandise like towels or coffee mugs and other times it was cold hard cash. Christine’s use of participative leadership was a valid choice of behaviors based on the goal and task at hand. The involvement that we all had in the decision-making process satisfied our desire for control as we felt that we were in charge of the events within our team (Northouse, 2016). During these days she would also cheerlead for us and push us to work harder as she knew we could close the deal despite the challenging goals that we set for ourselves on some night.
Looking back at that experience so many years ago, I see that Christine’s performance was in alignment with the framework of the Path-Goal theory. Night after night, she continually led her team and ultimately herself to leadership success. The unique ability of this approach offers the leader the freedom to assess their follower’s motivations continually and in response adjust their leadership behaviors to match, and she did just that. Had she had not had the foresight to assess us as individuals, or she rigidly stuck to just one leadership style she may not have been as effective as she was managing her team. Ultimately, she proved to be a very effective leader, and after only a year at the call-center she was promoted and moved into the corporate office.
References:
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Penn State World Campus (2016). PSYCH 485: Leadership in Work Settings. Lesson 6: Introduction to Contingency Theory and Path-Goal Theory. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1803831/modules/items/21139867
kmm6507 says
Great post, and thank you for sharing your experience with a strong leader! Leading a team of twenty people with a high amount of turn-over sounds incredibly challenging. With the amount of detail you have provided, we can also look at Christine’s leadership through a situational lens using the SLII model (Northouse, 2016).
Throughout the timeline you provided, Christine matched her leadership style to your development level (Northouse, 2016). You started out as a D1 follower, since you were new in the role and needed information from leadership on how to be successful (Northouse, 2016, p. 96). By taking the time to teach you how to complete your new tasks, she was acting in the high directive-low supportive (S1) style (Northouse, 2016). As you gained confidence and achievement in the role, you became a D2 follower, where your “initial motivation” started to wane with the frustrations you experienced (Northouse, 2016, p. 96). Christine responded with acknowledging and addressing your feelings, in the high directive-high supportive (S2) style (Northouse, 2016). As the team moved into D3 followers, competent with variable motivation, she responded with high supportive-low directive leadership by soliciting input on how to best set and achieve goals (Northouse, 2016).
Reference:
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Inc.