The premise of path-goal theory is related to “how leaders motivate followers to accomplish designated goals” (Northouse, 2016, p. 114). The premise of Fiedler’s contingency theory is to “try to match the leaders to appropriate situations” (PSU, 2018, para 1). Understanding that under these theories we view leadership style to situation. We need to understand the difference between these two theories because their approaches deem how successful the leader will be based on the given situation. Thus, path-goal leadership is geared toward motivating followers and Fiedler’s contingency is geared towards leader style best fitted for the situation. Leadership entail many approaches and there are many theories relevant for effective leadership. However, “effective leadership is contingent on (depend on) matching a leader’s style to the right setting” (PSU, 2018, para. 1). Keep in mind that leaders may want to show that they are effective but, we can only know if they are effective when placed in a particular setting.
It is very enlightening to learn about these new theories and how they apply to leadership. This week PSU commentary introduces the Fiedler’s contingency theory, path-goal theory and highlights situational approach, all these are relevant to leadership styles and approaches. We are informed these “add emphasis on the situation as important to the leadership process” (PSU, 2018, para 1). Fiedler’s contingency theory is incorporated into the contingency theories. From my understanding these theories place emphasis on whether or not the leader style is suitable for the situation that leader is engaged in and how successful the leader is with handling the situation. In a nutshell, PSU commentary lays it out as “the theories suggest that the effectiveness of the leader depends on how well the leader’s style matches the situation” (para.1).
Some pertinent information about Fiedler’s contingency theory has been introduced to us in this week’s PSU lesson commentary. I had no prior knowledge about contingency theory. I have learnt that the contingency model of leadership theory was developed by Fiedler. My grasp on this is that Fiedler’s contingency theory is opposite when compared to situational leadership theory, as it doesn’t mean leaders adapting to the situation but, leaders that are best suited for the situation. Further informative pieces detail that Fiedler’s contingency model “recognized that leaders have general behavioral tendencies and specifies situations where certain leaders may be more effective than others” (PSU, 2018, para 1). In addition, we are made aware how his theory became a well-known theory as this was identified with the time spent studying the context of various leadership process and deciphering its effectiveness. Like all theories, Fiedler’s contingency theory has strengths and weaknesses. This was a learning adventure and to sum it up, his theory provided the framework for leadership styles matching the situation as “some leaders are better in some situations and less effective in other situations” (PSU, 2018, para. 3) .
There are many aspects to the nurture system in path-goal leadership theory that leaders need to prepare for in order to be effective. “In the path-goal theory, the leader needs to figure out how to use a leadership style that allow him/her to motivate employees” (PSU, 2018, para. 4). Leadership in this domain is about encouraging followers and sticking by their side to ensuring that they are getting to the point of reaching their goals and accomplishments by discarding roadblocks and overcoming obstacles. Path-goal leaders need to take a deeper look at the work arena and decipher what is needed to help followers complete their tasks. Leaders need to incorporate the essential elements to help followers flourish and become successful. In other words, “path-goal theory suggests that leaders need to choose leadership styles that fit the needs of the subordinates and the situations” (PSU, 2018, para. 1).
Now I can draw some light on path-goal theory, it is of a nurture type relationship as it involves a few directions that leaders can take. In this premise leaders can choose to guide their followers through their path to accomplish their goals. Leaders can choose to be supportive of followers needs. Leaders can create a reward system to distinguish followers meeting their goals. I am a path-goal leader at my organization. For me, this reward system really works as I find the best way to get my followers to accomplish their task. I support, guide and motivate my followers to work towards the end goal and I always keep in mind the organization vision and mission. I have a variety of reward system which complements the followers’ work ethics. This path-goal leadership style works for me, as I lead in the achievement-oriented domain and it has been quite effective.
Path-goal leadership entail different types of leadership styles: directive, supportive, participative and achievement-oriented. PSU commentary provides us with these three types of leadership as it provides its own support system to its followers. Directive leadership provides direction and guidance. Supportive leadership provides not nature but nurture type of support. Participative leader engages in the activity and gets involved. Achievement-oriented leadership drives for complex challenge. Like all the other theories path-goal theory has its strength and weakness, there is no need for me to highlight because it is fully explanatory in PSU lesson 6 and it should be considered closely as it assesses the leader to the situation. Overall, path-goal theory simple reinforce that “an effective leader has to attend to the needs of subordinates. The leader should help followers define their goals and help them figure out what path to take to reach these goals” (PSU, 2018, para. 4).
I mentioned above that we can’t know a leader effectiveness unless they are placed in a particular setting. I will move forward noting what I have learnt from these theories and drawing from my past experience that the right setting calls for the right leader. Leadership style matching the right situation is important. My organization was de-escalating in standards of operating procedure, performance and goals. My organization have had three different types of leaders over the past three years. Each leader had a different style and approach to their leadership. The first leader was a like a team, path-goal leadership and supportive leader, the second was of a servant type leader and the third leader approached her leadership through the Fiedler’s contingency model. The Fiedler’s contingency model leader effectively raise the bar of accomplishments and success track. Her leadership effectiveness brought back the organization to its high standard of operating procedures. She is the better leader for this setting and most effective leader for my organizational setting.
References
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Pennsylvania State University. (2018). Contingency and path theories. Fiedler’s contingency model. PSYCH 485. Retrieved May 27, 2018 from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1940315/modules/items/24597498
Pennsylvania State University. (2018). Contingency and path theories. Introduction to path-goal theory. PSYCH 485. Retrieved May 27, 2018 from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1940315/modules/items/24597506
Christian Daly says
I, like you, am a path-goal leader. I have coached for many years now and after reading through all the different theories up to now I think path-goal leadership theory is the best. The reason for that is it is the only one to really incorporate motivation (Northouse, 2016, p. 123). When I coach I needed to motivate my players every day to get better and to work hard. Like you do, I give rewards for working hard and going 100%, 100% of the time. I also find it the best theory because everyone is different. To get the best out of people and help them achieve team and personal goals you have to tailor to that individual. Again like you I have found myself engaging in supportive behavior. I have to help high school kids grow and a lot of times they need a “human touch” or just have a “need for affiliation” (Northouse, 2016, p. 121). Great post and good luck with your organization.
References
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.