We expect our company leaders to wear multiple hats to work every day. Many are expected to run companies or departments, deal with customers or clients, selling, collecting, and the list goes on. One of the most important jobs for a leader today is motivating their employees to reach necessary goals. That would seem easy enough. Paychecks. Unfortunately, there is more to it than that. People are different. Tasks are different. Goals are different. Therefore, it stands to reason leadership behavior will need to be different too. One way to look at leadership behavior is through the path-goal theory.
The path-goal theory was “developed to explain how leaders motivate followers to be productive and satisfied with their work” (Northouse, 2016, 135). This theory examines leader behaviors, follower characteristics, and task characteristics. Theoretically, if the leader understands the follower and the task, they will be able to choose the right leadership behavior to meet the team or company goal. They will also be able to remove any unnecessary obstacles and create a clear path for the follower. Sounds easy enough, right? It’s almost like a simple calculation: Follower + Task = Necessary Leadership Behavior. Maybe not that easy.
I found it easier to look at leadership behaviors in combination with task characteristic. Tasks fall in to three categories: design of the task, formal authority system of the organization, and the primary work group of the followers. Leadership behaviors include directive leadership, supportive leadership, participative leadership and achievement-oriented leadership. These behaviors are just like the sound. Directive leadership require the leader to direct. This includes defining the task, timeline, expectations. This will be used when tasks are ambiguous, complex or unclear. Supportive leadership will be used when tasks are repetitive and unchallenging. Think of someone leading the efforts of an assembly line crew. Same thing day after day. A supportive leader who understands the lack of challenge and repetitive nature of the job can make sure they are providing support and encouragement to each employee. Participative behavior provides the employees the opportunity for involvement in decision making or the process of achieving the desired goal. This behavior works best when the task is unclear or unstructured. This gives employees the chance to define the task for success. And lastly, achievement-oriented leadership. This leadership behavior can be used when tasks are challenging and complex.
There are times when one leadership behavior will fit the appropriate follower and task; however, the majority of the time, the leader will use a combination of these behaviors to motivate the follower to goal accomplishment. According to Northouse, “leaders should adapt their styles to the situation or to the motivational needs of their followers” (Northouse, 2016, p. 118). For example, there may be an employee who has challenging task such as engineer designing a bridge or road. Achievement-oriented leadership would be appropriate but participating leadership may be an additional behavior. Leaders can encourage participation in decision and challenge their followers to provide the best results
This theory considers follower motivation, therefore it is necessary for leaders to analyze what followers need or want. “Follower characteristics determine how a leader’s behavior is interpreted by followers in a given work context” (Northouse, 2016, p.18). A leader can treat two people exactly the same way and he or she may often get different results. Where one employee may be upset by something a leader has done, another employee may not even notice. Leaders need to look at a follower’s need for affiliation or a person’s desire to feel a sense of belonging in a social group. Depending on how strong this need is, leaders should use a supportive style of leadership that shows concern and involvement. For employees who are dogmatic and work in uncertain situations respond to a directive leadership style because it provides a structure that will make them comfortable with the tasks at hand.
Then there is the follower’s desire for control. This includes two groups. Those with an internal locus of control and an external locus of control. Do employees believe they are in charge of what happens in their life or do they believe it is just chance (that is a separate blog in itself). This may affect the leadership style desired. Those with an internal locus of control prefer a participative leadership style because it allows them to feel a part of or in control of the outcome. Those with an external locus of control prefer a directive style of leadership because it feeds in their assumption that outside factors are in control. Otherwise known as their employer.
Finally, the follower’s perception of their own abilities will dictate the best leadership style. The more you know about your responsibilities, the less you need direction from leadership to achieve results.
At this point, this leadership theory is starting to feel like advanced calculus. This theory does require a lot from a leader. For those that supervise large teams, knowing all the factors involved and applying them to a team would be daunting. The complexity of this theory is noted as one of its weaknesses (Northouse, 2016, p. 123). However, it would benefit all leaders to understand the path-goal theory. Motivating employees takes time and energy but once a leader understands this equation and takes the time to understand the employee, this should be a simple path to success for everyone involved.
References:
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Christopher Bradley Snyder says
Alison,
I like the way you put Path-Goal Theory into a nice and neat equation. I find myself doing the same thing when learning about new theories or explanations of things, even when the material isn’t math related or quantifiable. For some reason, it just seems that the Universe should just operate on nice and neat equations that flow from input to output. This may very well be the case, given our minds are made up of matter and operate on electro-chemical processes that, in theory, should be predictable if we know the chemical inputs and outputs. Yet, human behavior is far more complicated than we’d like it to be.
I agree with you that Path-Goal Theory is an attempt to create a formula of behavior for leaders. A sort of “advanced calculus” of leadership/follower interaction and behavior, as you mentioned. Realistically, it could be said that all leadership theories are based on this premise of assessing a situation and making a prediction about it. The independent variables would be the leader’s behavior and the situation, the dependent variable would be the follower’s resulting behavior, and Path-Goal Theory attempts to create a way in which we can predict follower behavior based on how the leader behaves.
Yet, to its detriment, Path-Goal Theory becomes so complex that it is difficult to assess and calculate all of the minute variables that go into human behavior and everyday situations (Northouse, 2016). Try as hard as we might to predict a person’s reaction or behavior, we could fail each and every time. This theory also reminds me of Psychodynamic Theory, which also requires a very in-depth knowledge and understanding of human behavior and the “how’s” and “why’s” behind it, going as far back as our own childhood.
In short, humans are complex beings. Perhaps someday, with advanced technology and computers, we’ll be able to predict the output of a human given a certain input, but this would seem to require understanding each and every neuron of each individual. This, in my opinion, leads to the complexity of theories that, on their surface, seem to be so simple and common sense, but end up so complicated and convoluted.
References
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership theory and practice (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.