Often times we accept the misconception that our success is self-made. We forget that the most successful people did not make it to where they are on their own. By believing that success is self-made, we sometimes feel down-trodden when we can’t sum up intrinsic motivation to do something and become successful. Malcolm Gladwell says it best in his book Outliers, “…we so profoundly personalize success, we miss opportunities to lift others onto the top rung” (2008, p.32). Motivation is important because it is a force that is initiated internally and externally that moves a person to behave a particular way (Muchinsky, 2012).
In the Caribbean there is an old saying, “One hand can’t clap”. People usually say this when someone is refusing help because it expresses the idea that you cannot do it all on your own, you need other people or someone else, whether it’s for emotional support, guidance, etc. The path-goal theory of leadership dwells on the idea that a successful leader maximizes the potential of their subordinates and followers through motivation. As Northouse examines the path-goal theory, he points out that it is a theory of leadership that focuses on follower motivation (2016).
A leader can and should be that second hand to make a clap without being a dictator, but by being a motivator. If you’re needing a push, if you’re feeling demotivated, you should be able to turn to a supervisor, team lead, etc. to be an external source of motivation. Northouse discusses an essential aspect of the path-goal theory being that leaders should employ a style that is most suiting to the follower’s motivational needs. He emphasizes that leaders are responsible for providing the rudiments followers will need to accomplish their goals (2016).
It is important for leaders to generate motivation for followers, in order to for the followers to remain consistent and dedicated in accomplishing their goals. Generating motivation however, is a complex task which can be done in several ways. Northouse presents four types of leader behaviors that the path-goal theory stands on, directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented (2016). Though, I’ve seen each type in action, the most powerful in my opinion is achievement-orientated leadership.
Achievement-orientated leadership calls for a leader that motivates followers through challenges and high standards. As an athlete, I’ve felt most motivated when I was received this form of leadership. For the longest time I’ve been trying to run fast enough to qualify for the NYC Marathon, but I just couldn’t hack it. At a time when my motivation wasn’t the highest, I thought of the saying I’d heard from family members, “one hand can’t clap”. I hired a running coach that seemed to be the perfect fit for me because he showed so much confidence in my abilities and expected a lot from me which was extremely motivating. Though he seemed to be the perfect fit and he was, I realize that he adjusted his leadership style from understanding my characteristics and what my motivation was. He made the work so much more personally satisfying and made the goals clear, all of which motivated me and sustained the motivation, because motivation is continuous. The effectiveness of his achievement-orientated leadership allowed me to successfully run a half-marathon fast enough for qualification for the NYC marathon.
All in all, path-goal theory emphasizes the strength in leadership lies in motivating followers. Are you using just one hand to clap?
References
Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The Story of Success. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
jks5571 says
Oh my goodness, I love your example “one hand can’t clap”. This was so perfectly stated. I think you made a great point in your introduction that we often get stuck feeling like our success is “self-made”. I think it is even more difficult these days with social media. People have a funny but understandable habit of only posting the best things that happen, giving the illusion that their lives are very happy-go-lucky. When we constantly see these posts and stories, it can feel like we are not living up to our own potential, because we are comparing our entire picture with their highlights.
In reference to your preferred type of leadership, I think achievement-oriented leadership is a great motivator. Being an athlete myself, I feel the same way. But it is also such a versatile style of leadership that can be utilized in so many different situations.
As a leader or coach in the gym, I have studied and learned my own strengths and weaknesses. I know my limits, and I know how to accentuate my strengths and hide my weaknesses on a stage. This can give the false appearance that I have the “perfect” physique. When training others, it was always so satisfying to take a step down and show them, “hey, I might have great lower body strength, but you blow me out of the water on the upper body”. Really leveling with people and helping them realize their own achievements and to take the focus off of whatever they were not happy with usually resulted in a higher self-confidence, and renewed motivation to reach their ultimate goals. This idea of self-awareness and acceptance is detailed in Northouse’s chapter on transformational leadership called ” creative development of self”(Northouse, 2016, p.173).
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Matt Murray says
Great job with your blog post this week, Leana. You raise some interesting questions regarding the path-goal theory. Your post first caught my eye because of the Malcolm Gladwell book cover. Gladwell is one of my favorite authors and Outliers was the first of his books that I read.
Your post goes in a different direction after the opening paragraph, but reading your intro made me think of the trait approach to leadership versus the skills approach. Specifically, you discuss whether a person is a self-made success or not. Looking at this idea from your perspective as a successful leader, the trait approach would say that success is not self-made, but is inherent in the individual. An individual is either born with the abilities needed to be a good leader or not (Northouse, 2016). The skills approach instead states that that the things a person needs to be a good leader can be taught and developed (Northouse, 2016). In a way, this debate boils down to the nature versus nurture debate. Are an individual’s attributes set at birth or do they develop over time. I would imagine that Gladwell would say that it is some combination of the two ideas, because Outliers is based on the idea that there are certain conditions that can make people more likely to be successful, but action is required on his or her part.
I also enjoyed the discussion you had regarding how achievement-oriented motivated helped you with your running. Congrats on hitting your personal goal! What do you think your personality traits are that made that approach more effective for you? Which type of leadership do you think would’ve been the least effective for you in this situation?
Have a great week,
Matt Murray
References
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.