“The Motivator”

I will never forget when one of my previous mangers gave me the nickname, “The Motivator” and the best part about was how he said it. He would adopt the accent and tone of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s coined phrase, “The Terminator”. It was light and funny (I’m actually laughing out loud right now in remembrance), but it was true. I was always seeking more efficient ways to complete tasks or implement new procedures to the workplace to increase production and motivation. However, while my characteristic may remain constant throughout my career at various workplaces, the response from leadership isn’t always so, thus nor are the results, and I hadn’t ever understood why, until I learned about the path-goal theory.

As explained by PSU WC L. 6, WC. (2015, p. 12), the path-goal theory assumes that effective leaders will provide valued rewards for the follower (the “goal”) and then help them find the best way of getting there (the “path”). Now, while I have always been dead set on my goals, almost to the point with complete blinders on, I have always attributed failures in getting there to me not being smart enough, resourceful enough, etc. even though my ideas or aspirations would be acknowledged as viable by management. However, now that I understand the difference between whether or not leadership adapted to my specific characteristic. For example, the above mentioned manager went from directive leadership to participative leadership to adapt to my perception of my own abilities. Participative leadership refers to leaders who involve their followers in decision-making (p. 12) and he did just that. Not only after a few short months was I involved in the decision making process and implementation of new procedures, but he then adopted the achievement-oriented leadership style and further challenged me to new heights beyond what myself never would have thought of as achievable and all along the way he demonstrated supportive leadership. This is the essence of the path-goal theory. As pointed out by PSU WC. L. 5 (2015) he changed his style according to the situation (p. 13). In hindsight, whether he was aware of this theory or not, he demonstrated this technique with all of my co-workers as well.

On the other hand, and going back to my “failures”, I have had made many viable recommendations to other workplaces, but leadership does not always adjust in such a way as my previous manager(s). For example, I’ve had several directive style leaders and while I can be very task driven, this leadership style also denied my or my workgroups path to increase in productivity (p. 13). It could have been something as simple as recommending an extra printer, or changing the location of one to eliminate steps, recommendation to improve the overall office climate by implementing team challenges, etc. However, leadership remained the same, demonstrating the same trait day in and day out. Thus, yielding the same exact results. However, my motivation never ceased.

Perhaps the directive leaders simply were not allotted the flexibility or authority to remove the road blocks in my path. Perhaps they weren’t very efficient leaders… Either way, it is important to remember that this theory is base on “assumption” and along our path to our own leadership, we will also be followers. Thus, the biggest takeaway from this is that just because a leader does not recognize or does not choose to adapt their style, does not mean that we should be less motivated. Eventually, and hopefully, enough motivation from the follower will ultimately break a leader outside of their own trait characteristic to adapt accordingly for a better and more efficient workplace.

Refrences

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2015). PSYCH 485 Lesson 5 Part 2: Path Goal Theory. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa15/psych485/001/content/06_lesson/04_topic/03_page.html