Elements of Expectancy
Path Goal Theory has been referred to as a derivative of another theory that is deeply involved with motivational techniques, which is called the Expectancy Theory. Peter Northouse, in Leadership: Theory and Practice, makes this very point, “The underlying assumption of path-goal theory is derived from expectancy theory, which suggests that subordinates will be motivated if they think they are capable of performing their work, if they believe their efforts will result in a certain outcome, and if they believe that the payoffs for doing their work are worthwhile.” (Northouse, pg.137) The critical component of Path Goal theory that will ultimately ensure effective leadership then becomes the supposed leader’s subsequent ability or inability to find ways to motivate his/her subordinates.
With that being said, does Path Goal Theory really have inherent similarities to Expectancy Theory? You will see that the two are inexplicably interconnected. Path Goal theory emphasizes the need for leaders to motivate their subordinates so that tasks will invariably be accomplished. How, you ask? Both theories contend that effective leaders can, in effect, ensure that their subordinates are motivated. Motivation, therefore, is the key to effective leadership. Three researchers in this field make that very claim, “The leader’s actions should strengthen the follower’s beliefs that if they exert a certain level of effort, then they will accomplish a task and if they accomplish a task, then they will receive a valued outcome. (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy, 2012) [from Lesson #6, Psych 485].
Those same three elements critical to ultimately achieving motivation in Path Goal Theory are also extremely important to Expectancy Theory. They are known as valence, expectancy and instrumentality. Let’s break these three down one by one and see if they, in fact, appropriately correspond to the elements of Path Goal.
The first critical component of Path Goal states, “If you exert a certain level of effort.” “Valence is said to be the employee’s feelings about the outcomes and are usually defined in terms of attractiveness or anticipated satisfaction (importance, said another way).” (Muchinsky, pg.367) Valences can be either positive or negative, which will not surprisingly determine if the employee is or isn’t willing to exert the necessary effort. A positive valence means the outcome will leave the employee satisfied while a negative valence will lead to almost certain dissatisfaction. Any perceived feelings of indifference by the employee will result in a zero valence. The first obstacle dealing with motivation is getting the employee to exert a certain measure of effort. This notion of valence is in line with the first component of Path Goal theory, which requires a leader to initially get maximum effort out of his subordinates.
The next component of Path Goal states, “Then they will accomplish a task.” “Expectancy is the perceived relationship between effort and performance. Expectancy is scaled as probability.” (Muchinsky, pg.369) This is the relationship that is perceived by an employee between the effort he/she puts forward and the subsequent results of that effort. The simple math to this is: the harder I try, the better I will do. “An expectancy of 0 means there is no probability that an increase in effort will result in an increase in performance, while a 1 means that an increase in effort will be followed by a corresponding increase in performance.” (Muchinsky, pg.369) This ultimately requires that an employee’s effort results in expected performance. It is, therefore, the leader’s ultimate responsibility to get an employee to realize their potential. One aspect of Path Goal informs leaders of the possible need for them to help subordinates overcome obstacles that may stand in their way. This idea of expectancy is also seemingly in line with the second component of Path Goal theory, which calls for a leader to assist his subordinate in matching sustained effort with obtained performance.
The last component of Path Goal states, “They will receive a valued outcome.” “Instrumentality is defined as the perceived degree of relationship between performance and outcome attainment. Instrumentality is equivalent to the word conditional and literally means the degree to which the attainment of a certain outcome is conditional on the individual’s performance on the job.” (Muchinsky, pg.367) The final task for a supposed leader is reassuring his/her followers that rewards/recognition will not only be realized, but that they will also be worthwhile to the employee. This is also in line with the final component of Path Goal theory, in that it puts the onus on the leader to ensure that rewards/recognition are not only realized but also meaningful to their followers.
It is clearly evident that these two theories have inherent similarities, as they both place the onus directly centered on the supposed leader to get the most out of their employees. This can be accomplished by utilizing the VIE theory (valence, instrumentality, and expectancy). The Expectancy Theory and Path Goal Theory, which was derived from it’s predecessor the Expectancy Theory, states that each of the three critical components have to be present in order for a leader to motivate his workers.
References
Muchinsky, Paul M. (2013). Psychology Applied to Work. Hypergraphic Press. Summerfield, NC.
Northouse, Peter G. (2014). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Grabarek, Patricia. Psych 485. Leadership in Work Settings. Lesson #6: Contingency and Path Theories. PSU World Campus.