In staying within the realm of leadership and combining that with what we’ve learned thus far I decided, in this blog, to talk about two leaders that I’ve worked with and based on behaviors that I’ve observed, try to determine which type of leaderships styles they exhibited. I will also detail, from the follower’s perspective, the efficacy of each style I’ve seen.
The first person I will talk about is one of my most recent leaders Rob. Rob is one of the people that pushed me to become part of leadership at our agency and has over time groomed me for the position I now have. Rob has always been able to give you a clear expectation of what he needs you to do along with a deadline so there’s not questions about what or when the expectation should be completed. In this week’s reading we learned about the path goal leadership style. Northouse (2016) talks about the directive style where a leader provides clear goals and deadlines and makes sure those goals are understood. I know if you’re reading this your response is, he’s a boss and to give a directive is a normal thing for most boss’ regardless of the style, and I would agree. Where Rob differs is that he changes his leadership style to meet the needs of the followers to allow them to fulfill those expectations and he exhibits both the directive and supportive style at the same time.
Northouse (2016) teaches us that the path-goal theory is centered on the style that best suits the follower and being able to meet whatever motivational needs a follower may that will allow them to fulfill the expectation. But is it enough to just understand your follower’s needs? House and Mitchell (1974) would suggest that it’s not only understanding what your followers needs, rather, the payoff that followers receive for their work and completing goals.
Vroom (1983) would agree with the perspective of motivation and reward. Followers want to see that their efforts and body of work are both positively connected. It is through this process that the follower believes that good effort will result in some sort of reward, thus creating a want to complete the expectation (University of Cambridge, n.d.).
That said, I would say that its not just understanding the style required for each follower, but also understanding what within the process of completing the goal, makes each follower happy or rewarded. Is it the task itself? Is it the end result? Is t merely a paycheck? I would argue that if you’re dealing with a follower who is not motivated none of the leadership styles will be effective until we figure out what motivates the follower.
Rob knew that I’m more responsive to the directive leadership type and that I was motivated to be a part of his team. Telling me what you want and when you need it was all I needed as a follower. I may need some assistance throughout the project if obstacles arose but usually, I would just get the projects done as needed. My payoff was that I was being taught what was required to become leader in my organization. Rob would also be supportive and friendly so would always combine directive and supportive styles as they are described in the path-goal style.
Rob has been in his leadership role for more than 30 years and has helped shaped a number of people for leadership roles in the agency yet still has the ability to lead from the front and do the work if necessary. I would say that his leadership style is very effective among varying types of followers and organizational needs.
The second leader, we’ll call him Bob, if speaking in terms path-goal theory he would be seen as a directive style leader. Remember that a leader can and should utilize more than one style, but he was not very good with other styles within the path-goal theory. I then began to think that his style was closer to the skills approach. Bob had technical skill, for more than 20 years he has successfully grown his talents in this industry. Conceptually Bob is able to take task and relate them to his skills to get task done. Where he lacks is the human skill. Remember the human skill in the skills approach three model requires the leader be able to work with people and understand how to work cooperatively with his or her followers (Northouse, 2016, p. 45).
Bob does not trust followers enough to allow them to get the task done and unfortunately becomes a severe micro-manager. Northouse (2016) reminds us that one of the weaknesses of the skills approach is because having the skills is one thing but being able to explain how the skills make an effective leader is another, and Bob was a great example of this criticism. Time and time again Bob’s team would meet expectations but would never be higher the median grade. Turn around on his team was constant and his groups would typically consist of newer employees with lower seniority that had no other option than to work with him. It was clear, that his style or combination of stills, i.e. path-goal and skills approach was not effective.
I think this blog shows the importance of looking passed the rigidity that is one particular leadership styles and see that the combination of a group of styles is probably the best way to be an effective leader. It also shows that the human element, being able to work with and understand the nuances of your followers is imperative and if you don’t you may be effective at completing task but may miss the mark in being and effective leader.
References
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
University of Cambridge. (n.d.). IfM Management Technology Policy. Retrieved from https://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/research/dstools/vrooms-expectancy-theory/
House, R, J., and Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-Goal Theory of Leadership. Contemporary Business, 3, 81-98 (as read for Northouse text)