With so many theories of workplace motivation and leadership out there, things can get muddied pretty quickly. Is there one theory that paves the way for an individual to rise to success and become an effective leader? Probably not. Is there one theory that encompasses everything an individual will need to become the next rising star of their organizational leadership team? Unlikely. But, I can say, that out of all of the theories out there, the path-goal theory is one that makes a lot of sense to me in terms of its practical application in the workplace.
Everyone has begun their employment career at an entry level position. Despite some of the theories insisting on some individuals being born leaders, the fact of the matter is, no one entered the workforce as a top-tiered leader at the age of 15. We all came in at entry level positions and relied on the guidance and motivational assistance of our leaders. Northouse (2016) states that the emphasis of path-goal theory is centered around the leader tapping into their followers motivations in order to help them follow the path to goal attainment. According to this theory, the leaders are to “complement and suggest what is missing in…provide rewards in the work environment that their followers need to reach their goals” (PSU WC, 2020). In that regard, the theory really makes the connection between the leader, the follower, and the situation. By gaining an understanding of the follower’s needs, the leader is should be able to strengthen the relationship between the leader and the follower as well as provide direction towards accomplishments.
One area in the workplace that greatly interests me is deviant behavior from both the leader and the follower. Why do certain individuals seem to go rogue and follow their own rules instead of the organizational rules outlined for them? Could this be a function of the lackluster or even toxic relationship between the leader and the follower? I have often wondered if a theory such as path-goal theory, has the potential to decrease the occurrence of follower’s deviant behaviors. Given that path-goal theory focuses primarily on the relationship between the leader and the follower, assigning the role of the goal-attainment facilitator, so to speak, to the leader, could it be that this particular theory deters follower’s deviance? And could it be that because the emphasis seems to be on encouraging growth and development of the follower by way of providing them the necessary tools and resources they need to reach goals, this would deter deviance on behalf of the leader as well? Narcissistic and self-righteous tendencies might be better controlled if the focus is intentionally required to be placed on someone else, rather than the leader focusing on themselves and their own gains. Finding empirical research that has been done investigating this has been a difficult feat.
While there is no sure bet, one size fits all, approach that is guaranteed to make anyone a successful leader, path-goal theory brings a lot to the table. This theory drives home the need for the leaders to understand their followers in order to make them successful which, in turn, makes the leader and the organization successful. It is imperative for every leader to form some sort of relationship with their followers. The nature of that relationship has the potential to be a defining factor in the productivity of the follower. Further, that relationship can also play a role in things such as determining the follower’s organizational commitment and job satisfaction which can only prove to be beneficial to the leader, follower, and organization.
References
Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2020). PSYCH 485 Lesson 6: Contingency &
Path-Goal Theories. Retrieved from
https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2045005/modules/items/28166598
alo5241 says
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about Path-Goal Theory in this post. There are some aspects of what you shared that speak to me personally. I agree that there is no “secret sauce” for a great leader and that there are many competing theories out there. I also agree that the idea of Path-Goal resonates with me as a potentially supportive way to help employees grow and develop in their careers. However, there are some of your points that I am not sure that I align with. First, I question the idea that all people come into the workforce at entry-level positions. I can think of many people that I know that never worked in their youth, for various reasons, and truly entered the workforce as a “professional” in their field. A real-world example of this would be someone who went to military college, and leaves college with a higher rank, just for completing school – not because they have shown true “leadership skills” in the field. I think that learning about theories like these can help those leaders understand how to interact with their teams in affective ways.
While it is true that Path-Goal theory is supportive to the subordinate, it doesn’t specifically call out what support looks like. Support isn’t only positive reinforcement (raises, kind comments, etc.) , but can also look like critical feedback and accountability dependent upon the task at hand. “Path-goal theory tries to help subordinates overcome obstacles. Obstacles create uncertainties and frustrations that can keep subordinates from achieving their goals. Path-Goal theory suggests that it is the leader’s job to help their followers by removing these obstacles.” (PSUWC, 2020, L.6) I think that we aren’t doing the theory justice if we don’t speak to the fact that sometimes the way to overcome obstacles is by having the accountability of a supervisor as a motivator. I definitely am not saying that this is what works in every situation, but I think that there are a lot of nuances to how leaders help followers.
Last, I would share that for me, the biggest issue with Path-Goal theory is that it doesn’t take into account the affect that subordinates have on leaders. (PSUWC, 2020, L.6) Leadership is a two way street, and this theory assumes that the only input is on behalf of the leader. As a leader, I can share that the demeanor, energy, and contributions of my team affect me every day. How the interactions between leaders and followers go will certainly affect a leaders ability to select the right inputs to help motivate a team or to “remove obstacles”. I appreciate your thoughts in this post and wonder what your thoughts are on the idea that Path-Goal theory doesn’t address the two-way street of leadership relationships?
References:
Pennsylvania State University Work Campus (2020). PSYCH 485. Lesson 6: Contingency & Path-Goal Theories. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2045005/modules/items/28166610