In this week’s blog, I will discuss path-goal theory, its complex parts, and apply the concept to a situation I experienced in the past. Path-goal theory involves the process of subordinates achieving their goals through the inspiration of their leader (Penn State World Campus, 2017). How does this theory work? In path-goal theory, a leader must determine the best method of leadership to utilize in order to satisfy his or her subordinate’s demands and encourage them to attain their goals (Northouse, 2016, p.115). When something is absent from the follower’s situation, a leader needs to improve the situation with a different leadership style. Moreover, it is up to the leader to clear away any obstructions blocking followers from obtaining a goal and feeling their potential has been fulfilled. There are three aspects that function within path-goal theory: leader behaviors, subordinate characteristics and motivation, and task characteristics (Northouse, 2016, p.116). In the following paragraphs, I will discuss how these functions and the concept of path-goal theory relates to one leader and her ZooTeen followers.
Based on path-goal theory, leadership behaviors can consist of: directive leadership, supportive leadership, participative leadership, and achievement-oriented leadership (Penn State World Campus, 2017). In the situation I will present, the leader of a ZooTeen program at the Palm Springs Living Desert Zoo displayed features of supportive leadership. During a volunteer meeting a few years ago, Ramina and six ZooTeens (including myself) proposed the creation of an educational presentation for zoo guests at the African Wild Dog exhibit. Ramina utilized supportive leadership to try to guide her ZooTeens toward the development and completion of a zoo cart with engaging educational props and brochures. That is, she used her kindness and warmth in an attempt to inspire her followers to achieve the goal of designing a new educational demonstration (Northouse, 2016, p.117-118). Additionally, when her ZooTeens felt unsure or fatigued from working on the zoo cart, she was always considerate and tried to keep on top of satisfying their desires for support by making their tasks as fun as possible. Similarly, a supportive leadership style involves tending to follower’s demands and making tasks enjoyable (p.118). She also showed deep respect for her ZooTeens through verbal praise, another feature of supportive leadership. Unfortunately, despite Ramina’s supportive leadership style and caring attitude, the zoo cart was never completed.
Where did she go wrong? Several factors may have affected the educational presentation failure. Based on path-goal theory, her leadership style may not have satisfied all of her follower’s needs and/or situational demands (Penn State World Campus, 2017). For example, in addition to Ramina’s leadership style, her ZooTeen’s follower characteristics are a significant influence on goal attainment according to path-goal theory, for these characteristics may reveal ways in which the behaviors of a leader are translated by her followers (Northouse, 2016, p.118-119). In path-goal theory, follower characteristics can involve: needs for affiliation, preferences for structure, desires for control, and self-perceived task ability (Penn State World Campus, 2017). The ZooTeens showed a clear need for affiliation, thus supportive leadership was an adequate leadership style for a part of their demands (Northouse, 2016, p.119).
However, the ZooTeens also displayed desires for more control, or more specifically an internal locus of control; they may have wanted to believe they were in control of the educational presentation development process (Northouse, 2016, p.119). They may have wanted to be more involved in deciding how and when the zoo cart would be developed. Northouse (2016) suggests followers that display an internal locus of control be led through participative leadership (p.119). Participative leadership involves allowing subordinates to partake in making choices and share their views, which a leader may incorporate into a final decision (Northouse, 2016, p.118). Thus, Ramina should have utilized participative leadership to satisfy her ZooTeen’s desires for an internal locus of control by providing them opportunities for more involvement in the decision making process of creating a zoo cart.
In addition to follower characteristics, task characteristics may have affected the ZooTeen’s performance and Ramina’s motivational influence (Northouse, 2016, p.119). Some task characteristics may consist of: subordinate’s task design, organization’s system of authority, and subordinate’s main work group (Penn State World Campus, 2017). In Ramina’s situation, the process of completing the cart was ambiguous. It was unclear as to what the ZooTeens could or could not include in their presentation, and the task of developing a zoo cart may have been too complex for them to handle. According to Northouse (2016), directive leadership gives structure to unclear, ambiguous, complex tasks and helps strengthen a system of formal authority (p.120). Directive leadership involves a leader providing subordinates with clear directions regarding how to work on and complete a task (Northouse, 2016, p.117). Based on Northouse’s (2016) text, performance standards, expectations, unambiguous rules, and deadlines are developed and made straightforward by a directive leader (p.117). The ZooTeen’s educational presentation is ambiguous, complex, and without clear rules, therefore Ramina should utilize directive leadership to make the task less ambiguous, less complex, and more clear.
Conclusively, path-goal theory reveals several aspects of Ramina’s situation in which changes could have been made in order to bring her group more success. According to the concept, she would need to utilize a style of leadership that satisfies her ZooTeen’s needs and the situation’s demands (Penn State World Campus, 2017). Ramina should continue to use supportive leadership in order to fulfill her follower’s need for affiliation, however, the ZooTeens also displayed a desire for an internal locus of control, which calls for participative leadership (Northouse, 2016, p.119). Additionally, since the task of developing a zoo cart may have been too ambiguous, complex, and unclear, Ramina may have been more fruitful with a directive leadership style (Northouse, 2016, p.120-121). It is important to note that it is possible to mix and/or switch leadership styles to satisfy follower and task characteristics (Northouse, 2016, p.118). Thus, Ramina could have combined participative and directive leadership to guide her ZooTeens over obstacles that were preventing them from completing their educational presentation.
References
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Penn State World Campus. (2017). Lesson 6: Contingency and Path Theories. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/canvas/sp17/21711–17327/content/06_lesson/printlesson.html
aud39 says
I enjoyed your example of path-goal theory. In this instance, while you all clearly respected and enjoyed Ramina’s leadership, she did not offer you everything you needed to complete your task. It is always nice to consider your leader a friend but this does not make the leader effective as seen in your example.
I also appreciate that you also provided different leadership techniques to handle the situation. Not all situations allow for just one leadership strategy to be used. Oftentimes it is a combination of different strategies that would be most effective, specifically directive and participative styles (Northouse, 2016).
Abigail Marie Sanchez says
Lauren,
I greatly enjoyed reading your post, and how you applied the concepts of path-goal theory to a particular situation.
While reading your post, I could not help but relate it to a particular situation that I once faced with a boss of mine at a place of employment. The boss was too like Ramina. She showed incredible supportive attributes as a leader, was friendly approachable, very easy going, respectful, and treated her workers as equals (WC.PSU 17).
Unfortunately, like Ramina as well, lots of things did not get done in a timely fashion. For example, many times we failed as a location to meet several deadlines for projects because she was to laid back and not as authoritative. In other words, as you mentioned about a lot of the follower’s needs were not satisfied with that type of style of leadership. (PSU WC 17) Many times, people need a directive leader, one who gives instructions, tells the followers what they are expected to do, how it needs done and especially a time line (PSU WC 17).
Do you think a combination of a directive + Supportive approach could have helped Ramina be successful?
Penn State World Campus. (2017). Lesson 6: Contingency and Path Theories. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/canvas/sp17/21711–17327/content/06_lesson/printlesson.html