Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Being Authentic is Essential

by

                                           True North (ISHN, 2017)

To start with a baseline for this Blog, I will first define what leadership and authentic mean. Author Northouse (2016) defines leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (Northouse, 2016, p. 6), and according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, authentic is defined as one “worthy of acceptance, not false or imitation, true to one’s own personality, spirit, or character” (Merriam-Webster, 2018). In Northouse’s book of Theory and Practice, he continues to explain while authentic leadership sounds simple on the surface, defining authentic leadership is much more difficult than just affirming it as one who exhibits genuine or “real” behaviors. (Northouse, 2016). Thus, the difficulty in defining authentic leadership lies in the fact there is no solid research behind its theory(1) and application (Northouse, 2016). However, a maxim(2) presented by author Bill George (2003) offers a practical approach to developing and understanding authentic leadership (Williams, 2018).

Ever since the Great Recession of 2008, people have found it even harder to trust leaders in both public and private sectors, and ones’ misplaced trust can be a difficult thing to regain (Jacobs, 2014). So, how does one regain that trust and how is being authentic essential for a leader? First, let’s get a better understanding of George’s practical approach to authentic leadership. “George found that authentic leaders have a genuine desire to serve others, they know themselves, and they feel free to lead from their core values” (Northouse, 2016, p. 197). His approach expresses ones’ authentic nature from five unobservable dimensions and five observable characteristics (Williams, 2018). The five unobservable qualities are purpose, value, relationship, self-disciple, and heart. The five observable characteristics are passion, behavior, connectedness, consistency, and compassion (Northouse, 2016). George’s practical approach starts will one identifying their authentic qualities from the unobservable dimensional or inner-self. Then one connects and utilizes their inner authentic qualities as outward authentic behaviors which show as observable characteristic as seen in the diagram below (Northouse, 2016).

Moreover, one of the strengths to using George’s process is how a leader can learn, grow, and self-assess each dimension and characteristic, finding out which areas he or she still needs improvement on (Northouse, 2016). To expound, I will use myself in an example. First-off, I consider myself to be a hardworking, honest, and loyal individual who holds himself to a high standard of integrity. However, I also have a passion for people, cars, and technology. So, during conversations about those topics I can sometimes get a little carried away. For instance, when I was working at Best Buy as a computer sales consultant. I could find myself at times getting a little too passionate in explaining the capabilities of a product. Thus, making it seem as if the product can do more than it actually could. So, even though I was not trying to be unethical by overstating the products abilities. My lack of self-discipline led me to acting disingenuous about how I presented the product. Now, if I were to switch roles with my customer, knowing well what a computer can and cannot do based on its specifications. I would think the sales consultant was trying to mislead me into buying the product. Thus, after self-assess the situation, I can clearly see I needed to work on my self-discipline dimension as to be more consistent and authentic in my behaviors (Northouse, 2016).

In opposition to that strength of authentic leadership, one of its weaknesses is how one perceives his or her morality to be authentic (Williams, 2018). Northouse (2016) explains “authentic leaders understand their own values and behave toward others based on these values” (Northouse, 2016, p. 198). Going back to my example in the last paragraph. Even though I was passionately overstating the capabilities of the product. I did not feel as if my actions were unethical towards the customer, I felt as if I was selling the product authentically, being true to my values and behaving accordingly. Yet, it is equally possible for others to perceive my actions as being unethical or disingenuous. Thus, authentic leadership lacks a fundamental guide for how one should interpret their authenticity towards moral behaviors, since ones’ actions could be interpreted differently by others.

In addition, research has not found a correlation linking positive organizational outcomes to authentic leadership (Williams, 2018). Nevertheless, even if authentic leadership has not proven itself as a mainstream leadership style. I find its underlining principle of trust building to be essential for a leader. As I have already defined, one who is authentic is one who is true to him or herself and is worthy of being accepted by others. Trust is a critical building block for any relationship and being a leader is building relationships to achieve goals. Leaders who do not have the trust of their followers will find it difficult to achieve their goals. Thus, trust is essential for any leader. But, in order to gain trust in his or her followers, one must be viewed as authentic in both words and actions (Conley, 2016). Nelson Mandela is a great example of a leader who led authentically from his character, values, and was accepted by others for what he stood for. Though, the South African government saw his actions as treasonous and had him thrown in prison, his values never wavered. The government even tried to persuade Mandela to reject his movement for equality with the temptation of an early release from prison. But, Mandel stayed true to himself and stayed in prison. Mandela’s actions were authentic which built trust with his followers who eventually elected him to be there president (A+E Networks, 2009).

In closing, author Kevin Cashman stated in his authentic leadership article, “while we are authentic to our current state of development, we are inauthentic to our potential state of development. As Shakespeare wrote so eloquently in Hamlet, ‘We know what we are, but not what we may be.’” (Cashman, 2017). Leadership is continually developing art and authentic leadership is another piece in that leadership puzzle. George’s practical approach to authentic leadership provides us with a solid tool for self-evaluation. It is essential for any leader to know where they are in order to improve and it is essential for a leader to build trust with their followers. Thus, being authentic with followers builds trust and trust is essential for any leader follower relationship.

 

 

Definitions

Theory(1) – “A plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena” (Merriam-Webster, 2018).

Maxim(2) – “A general truth, fundamental principle, or rule of conduct” (Merriam-Webster, 2018).

References

A+E Networks. (2009, n.d. n.d.). Nelson Mandela. Retrieved from History.com: http://www.history.com/topics/nelson-mandela

Cashman, K. (2017, 04 24). Ten Authentic Leaderhsip Practices. Retrieved from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevincashman/2017/04/24/ten-authentic-leadership-practices/#5857559e4e0a

Conley, R. (2016, 03 17). Leaders, Build Your Success on Trust. Retrieved from Chief Learning Officer: http://www.clomedia.com/2016/03/17/leaders-build-your-success-on-trust/

George, B. (2003). Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

ISHN. (2017, 08 18). How Alsaka auto body shop fine tuned its OSH program. Retrieved from Industrial Safety & Hyglene News: https://www.ishn.com/articles/107012-how-alaska-auto-body-shop-fine-tuned-its-osh-program

Jacobs, T. (2014, 12 16). Antoher Casualty Of The Great Recession: Trust. Retrieved from Pacific Standard: https://psmag.com/economics/another-casualty-great-recession-trust-work-layoffs-fired-job-96611

Merriam-Webster. (2018, 04 04). Authentic. Retrieved from Merriam-Webster Since 1828: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authentic

Merriam-Webster. (2018, 03 30). Maxim. Retrieved from Merriam-Webster Since 1828: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maxims

Merriam-Webster. (2018, 04 06). Theory. Retrieved from Merriam-Webster Since 1828: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership Theory and Practice (7th Edition). London, United Kingdom: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Williams, J. (2018, 04 05). Authentic Leadership Approaches. Retrieved from psu.instructure.com: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1923777/modules/items/23736296

Every Leader Needs A Little Altruism

by

According to author Northouse (2016), “servant leadership is a paradoxical approach to leadership that challenges our traditional beliefs about leadership and influence” (Northouse, 2016, p. 253). The paradoxical challenge of servant leadership is in its foundation of the leader altruistically serving followers instead of followers serving the leader. In this style of leadership, leaders help, support, and empower ones’ followers to reach their full potential as individuals (Northouse, 2016). Thus, I will start with a brief overview of servant leadership, then imply that leaders who supplement their current leadership style with servant leadership behaviors will create a positive change in ones’ business environment.

First off, servant leadership was coined by Robert K. Greenleaf in 1970. Yet, according to Northouse (2016), some of its major sightings come from author Larry Spears. Spears (2002) identified ten characteristics from Greenleaf’s writings which make up the core of servant leadership, these ten characteristics being listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community (Northouse, 2016). Together, each of these characteristics creates the foundation of what servant leadership is and are self-explanatory in nature. Furthermore, Linden et al. model of servant leadership creates a good framework for understanding how servant leadership creates positive outcomes within a working environment.

Liden et al. (2014) model of servant leadership functions within three progressive stages. The first stage is the antecedent conditions which encompasses the context of a situation, the followers’ culture, the leaders’ attributes, and lastly, leader-follower receptivity (Northouse, 2016). Each of these dimensions needs to be taken into account before a leader moves to the second stage of enacting a leadership behavior. Hence, the second stage of the model is using one of these seven core behaviors: conceptualizing, emotional healing, putting followers first, helping followers grow and succeed, behaving ethically, empowering, and creating value for the community to affect change in ones’ followers (Northouse, 2016). Thus, a leader who puts forth the effort to use these core behaviors is ultimately going to benefit from the main strengths of using the servant leadership style. These strengths being ethical behavior from altruistic leadership and follower development from guiding and directing followers to participate in being leaders themselves (Williams, 2018). The last part of Liden et al. model is the outcome of the enacted behaviors of the leader. The outcome is essentially the leader tracking and assessing any performance, growth, and the societal impact he or she has encouraged from leading in the servant style. So, using servant leadership and my experience as a follower. I will describe how one of my managers from my former employer encouraged me to be a leader using the servant style alongside his main style of situational leadership.

To start, my experience comes from being an employee at Best Buy, the giant electronic retailer. I officially had seven managers at the store I worked but one main manager who oversaw the computer department. When I started my job in computer sales, I was well versed in computer knowledge since building computers was a hobby of mine. But, I had no experience in selling products. So, I sounded like a robot spouting off technological mumbo-jumbo and just was confusing our customers who were looking to get rational advice for their next purchase. The main manager who oversaw the computer department (whom I will call Bob in this Blog), was aware of my struggles. Bob showed servant leadership in his empathy and stewardship towards choosing to personally train me instead of delegating that work to my supervisor. Once a week he took me aside to do simulated training. Bob would pretend to be a customer and would act and ask different questions each time we trained until I was more fluid in my responses. Bobs method of coaching help support and empower me to be more self-confident. Healing my emotional laps of being shy and timid when talking with customers. Yet, even though my performance and growth as a computer sales consultant improved significantly in a two month. Bob still checked in on me each month, listening to any concerns I had, continuing to support me in taking take the lead on my own. Thus, just as Northouse described servant leadership, Bob was “attentive to the concerns of their followers, emphasize with them, and nurture them… putting followers first, empower them, and help them develop their full personal capacities” (Northouse, 2016, p. 225).

Lastly, it was clear that Bobs’ commitment to the growth of people was in the interest of a long-term sustainability and commitment to employees first. Bob’s intentions and goals seemed to be aligned with reducing turnover and treating employees as valued assets, not overhead. His passion for fellow followers was clearly different than the other managers who only valued short-term profits, seeing employees just as instruments to maximize corporate sales. However, Bob built a community of followers who shared a deep level of appreciation and respect for him. Thus, Bob’s use of servant leadership behaviors did lead to a positive change within his employees. Yet, as Northouse pointed out, the downside to servant leadership is not everyone will accept the positive effects this leadership style. Leaders should take into account that out-group members can exist within their work environment. These employees “are less-compatible with the leader and usually just come to work, do their job, and go home” (Northouse, 2016, p. 139). Nevertheless, Bob’s actions of “servant leadership created a healthier organization that nurtured individual growth, strengthen organizational performance, and, in the end, produce a positive impact” (Northouse, 2016, p. 236).

 

References

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership Theory and Practice (7th Edition). London, United Kingdom: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Williams, J. (2018, 04 04). Strengths and Weaknesses of Servant Leadership. Retrieved from psu.instructure.com: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1923777/modules/items/23736288

Small Vision Made BIG

by

Small Vision Made BIG

Normal, healthy, active individuals do not usually think about others who suffer in silence. But, that was not the case for Terry Fox. He is a Canadian inspiration who lived in a small community on the outskirts of Vancouver. His inspirational story starts at the age of 18 when Terry was diagnosed with bone cancer and was “forced to have his right leg amputated six inches above the knee” (TTFF, 2018). While recovering in the hospital, Terry was overwhelmed by the anguish of other cancer patients and instantly chose to start raising funds to help fund cancer research by running a cross-country marathon. In 1980, Terry started his “Marathon of Hope” in the providence of Newfoundland at the age of 21. His goal was to run across Canada back to his home in Vancouver. However, after running for 143 days, 3,449 miles, he was forced to retire in Ontario due to an appearance of cancer in his body. Sadly, Terry passed away one year later but his story and memory live on every year in the annual Terry Fox Run. It is a charity event which is held in multiple locations all over Canada to raise funds for cancer research (TTFF, 2018).

So, what does Terry Fox have to do with leadership? Terry Fox is not a known celebrity such as Brad Pit or Tom Cruise but he is one of many small voices who has made a big difference in countless of people’s lives. As explain by Northouse (2016), transformational leadership is a process “whereby a person engages with others and creates a connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower” (Northouse, 2016, p. 162). Leaders can demonstrate this capacity by showing the four transformational leadership factors which are: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellect stimulation, and individualized consideration (Northouse, 2016).

Idealized influence is the emotional act of leaders becoming role models for followers. The leaders build trust by showing “very high standards of moral and ethical conduct and can be counted on to do the right thing” (Northouse, 2016, p. 167). Terry stood up handicapped to help others, clearly demonstrating a higher sense of morality. Caring for other when many turned away. He role-modeled his actions by doing what he said he would do. Thus, Terry trained and ran his marathon for charity (TTFF, 2018).

Inspirational motivation is a leader’s way of communicating his or her shared vision to followers (Northouse, 2016). While many leaders talk and inspire others to pursue their vision, Terry lived his. Even though the inspiration for his cause come from a negative experience. The positive outcome which emerged from his efforts paid more dividends then he could have ever imagined. Currently to date, his foundation has raised over $750 millions of dollars towards cancer research worldwide (TTFF, 2018).

Intellectual stimulation is how a leader challenges his or her followers to change for the greater good or vision. In this transformational leadership factor, leaders engaging their followers and problem solve (Northouse, 2016). Terry was a young man who just started a foundation with no money to fight cancer. So, he contacted 999 Canadian businesses, calling on them to pledge the same $10,000 dollars he pledged toward the cause (TTFF, 2018).

Lastly, individualized consideration is a leader showing support and listening to the needs of his or her followers (Northouse, 2016). While at the hospital, the other patients were suffering from cancer as he did. So, even though they were not his spoken follower, he understood their pain and responded to their call (TTFF, 2018). Northouse (2016) explains that the transformational process “incorporates both the followers’ and the leader’s needs, leadership is not the sole responsibility of a leader but rather emerges from the interplay between leaders and followers” (Northouse, 2016, p. 177).

In concluding, even though Terry never sought to be in the limelight. His actions caught everyone’s attention as they watch his every step. Northouse (2016) argues that transformational leaders are agents of change who role model high-level values and principles. They seek to share a clear vision and take the necessary steps to move followers in its direction. Transformational leaders help to motivate followers and expect followers to have a high level of commitment to their vision (Northouse, 2016). Thus, Terry Fox marathon of hope did just that, he leads the charge to help fund cancer research so that there could one day be a future without the pain and suffering from it.

 

References

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership Theory and Practice (7th Edition). London, United Kingdom: SAGE Publications, Inc.

TTFF. (2018, 01 01). An Introduction to Terry Fox. Retrieved from The Terry Fox Foundation: http://www.terryfox.org/terrys-story/

TTFF. (2018, 01 01). The Marathon of Hope. Retrieved from The Terry Fox Foundation: http://www.terryfox.org/terrys-story/marathon-of-hope/

Do sports have in and out-groups?

by

Do sports have in and out-groups?

 

Many leadership styles or theory’s focus primarily on the leader, follower, and or the context of the situation. Yet, not many leadership theories are contingent on the dyadic relationship between the leader and follower. Thus, in this Blog post, I will be discussing the leader-member exchange theory (LMX Theory) from a member’s perspective. More specifically, I will be using my past experience in high school baseball to discuss how leaders can positively and negatively impact the behaviors in athletes.

First off, what is the LMX Theory? According to Leadership-centeral.com, they explain the LMX theory’s origins emerged from transformational theory in the 1970’s by authors Fred Dansereau, George Graen, and William J. Haga. The theory’s main premise is for leaders to focus on building high-quality leader-follower relationships to increase work performance and efficiency (Leadership-Central, 2016). Northouse (2016) continues deliberating how the theory works in two ways, descriptively and prescriptively (Northouse, 2016).

Descriptively, the theory stresses the importance of leaders being able to recognize that followers exist within two categories, in-groups, and out-groups. In-group members are recognized by their leader for going above and beyond their normal work agreement. In doing so, in-group members are closer to their managers, typically earning themselves preferential treatment over out-group members. In contrast, out-group members will only do the minimum required of them. Hence, one will only act in a manner to which he or she will not be reprimanded or fired. So, after one has established the existence of in and out-groups. The leader must then prescribe to him or herself how to create high-quality relationships with followers. The goal is to reduce turnover, increase employee performance and satisfaction by keep in-group members in and bring out-group members to become in-group members (Northouse, 2016).

So how does a leader build a high-quality relationship with their followers? Northouse (2016) describes this prescriptive process in three phases, the stranger phase, the acquaintance phase, and the mature partnership phase. The stranger phase is the baseline of leader-follower engagement. A leader and follower will only interact with one another based on the situational need, such as a leader giving an assignment to the follower or the follower turning in that assignment without any other context in-between. In the acquaintance phase, trust and respect are starting to be developed as interactions between the leader and follower are improving. This can be typically found as a leader is placing greater responsibilities upon his or her follower. And lastly, as stated by Northouse, the mature partnership phase “is marked by high-quality leader-member exchanges… relationships experience a high degree of mutual trust, respect, and obligation toward each other. They have tested their relationship and found that they can depend on each other… Thus, there is a high degree of reciprocity between the leaders and followers” (Northouse, 2016, p. 143).

Furthermore, how do sports and behavior fit into this picture? Just as leaders in businesses are building high-quality relationships to improve worker performance. Coaches are also working to build high-quality relationships to increase player performance. Thus, in and out groups exist among athletes as well. Going back to my junior and varsity baseball years in high school. I had a different coach each year and a different relationship with each coach which had different behavioral results for me as an athlete.

Starting with my junior year, I was enthusiastic to be picked among others to join our varsity baseball team. Thus, I had a strong work ethic to practice and work hard to be a starter. I started as an in-group member of the varsity team, I knew most of the players well and had played with my coach before in the summer. So, I would state our relationship phase started at the second level acquaintance phase. We had good communication and I made strides to impress him during practice and games. However, after about one-third of our season was over, I realized my coach played favorites. Thus, regardless of how hard I worked and performed during our practice and games, I did not have a chance to become a starter. For example, one of our starters was injured yet, he was still playing in front of other capable players. Learning this significantly damage my drive and work ethic. I slowly lost my progression towards gaining a high-quality relationship with my coach, falling back into the stranger phase, and became an out-group member on the team. My coach did not try to recover our relationship which made me feel worse, I was an average to good player so I did not feel as if I was lacking in skill (from an objective standpoint). One could argue that a team sport is a team sport and no in or out-groups exist. However, a coach is still one’s leader, and a leader can neglect or have a bias towards a follower. Thus, the treatment from coach caused my behaviors change in a negative manner (Northouse, 2016).

Moreover, Northouse (2016) deliberates on how one of the key weaknesses to the LMX Theory is the lack of fairness in its process. So, even though I perceived my old coach as leading unfairly. My senior year in baseball was getting a fresh start with a new coach. Luckily, my new coach based his decisions for starters on performance, not favoritism. However, I came out my senior year a little arrogant, thinking that I would start just because I was a senior. So, after I did not start my first two league games, I was questioning his fairness as a coach. However, I asked to speak with him one on one, he told me my skill is where but my attitude was not. So, under his guidance and hard work, we built a high-quality relationship and I started in the fourth league game until the end of the season. He led our team in a very transformational way. His actions as our leader change my behavior and others work ethic in a positive direction. Thus, as stated by Northouse, “effective leadership is contingent on effective leader’s member exchanges” (Northouse, 2016, p. 146).

 

References

Leadership-Central. (2016, n.d. n.d.). Leader-Member Exchange Theory – LMX. Retrieved from Leaderhsip-Centeral.com: http://www.leadership-central.com/leader-member-exchange.html#axzz58q12XfNl

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership Theory and Practice (7th Edition). London, United Kingdom: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Filed Under: LMX

Is Path-Goal Theory A Practical Leadership Practice?

by

Goal-Setting (Crace, 2014)

 

Is Path-Goal Theory A Practical Leadership Practice?

The path-goal theory of leadership is more of a follower motivational theory to leadership than it is a theory of true leader-follower development. At its core, the path-goal theory is based on the situational approaches leadership styles, mixed with the expectancy theory to motivation, where a leader’s objective is to increase a follower’s motivation through improving one’s job satisfaction and performance while in pursuit of a goal. Thus, I will be examining the practical use of the path-goal theory to my current job as a machinist, and my last job as a computer sales associate. But first, let’s define leadership as to have a foundation for its meaning in this blog (Northouse, 2016).

According to Peter Northouse (2016), the definition of leadership is “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (Northouse, 2016, p. 6). Thus, after defining leadership, I am sure we can agree the path-goal theory falls into the leadership category since it involves a leader influencing and or motivating followers to pursue a common goal. However, as I break down the path-goal theory, its complexity makes it less practical than others theories to employ as an everyday leadership method. To start, let’s look at the path-goal theory’s basis to obtain a better understanding of the theory (Northouse, 2016).

As Northouse (2016) states, “within the path-goal theory, motivation is conceptualized from the perspective of the expectancy theory of motivation” (Northouse, 2016, p. 116). Author Victor Vroom postulated the expectancy theory which utilizes three key variables to the conceptualization of motivation, these variables being expectancy, instrumentality, and valence. Expectancy is ones’ idea that increased effort will lead to ones’ performance increasing as well. Instrumentality is ones’ idea that performing well at ones’ job will lead to a valued outcome, and valence is the importance one places on the expected outcome. To illustrate, if I think money is important (valence), I will put more effort into working harder (expectancy), if my performance has increased, I will get a raise and will be making even more money (instrumentality). However, Vroom’s expectancy theory “assumes that behavior results from conscious choices among alternatives whose purpose it is to maximize pleasure and to minimize pain… Hence, the expectancy theory works on perceptions” (YourCoach, 2018). Thus, working harder for a raise will not guarantee an outcome of a raise just because I perceive it will.

Moreover, the path-goal theory is outlined as selecting a leadership behavior based on the characteristics of the follower and task. Hence, a follower’s motivation is contingent on the leader picking the correct leadership style to fit the follower and task he or she is engaged in. Northouse (2016) states the “path-goal theory is designed to explain how leaders can help followers along the path to their goals by selecting specific behaviors” (Northouse, 2016, p. 116). These behaviors are directive, supportive, participative, and achievement oriented. Thus, the path-goal theory essentially “provides a set of assumptions about how various leadership styles interact with characteristics of followers and the work setting to affect the motivations of followers” (Northouse, 2016, p. 120). For example, the path-goal theory would recommend a leader to use the directive style of leadership to help guide followers who are assertive and authoritarian. While the supportive style would be recommended for follower whose work is mundane and repetitive. This leads me to my next point, the weaknesses in the path-goal theory outweigh its benefits (Northouse, 2016).

According to Northouse (2016), one of the theory’s criticisms is the complexity of leadership aspects it tries to incorporate. Such as knowing the behavior, motivation, and how to correctly interpret it to apply the right leadership style. Another criticism is the lack of empirical research. Northouse (2016) states, “research findings to date do not provide a full and consistent picture of the basic assumptions and corollaries of path-goal theory” (Northouse, 2016, p. 124). The last two criticisms of the path-goal theory are it fails to explain how leadership behavior correlates to a follower’s motivation and that the theory is only directed towards the followers, removing the possibilities of followers being able to affect change on leaders (Northouse, 2016).

Lastly, due to the complexity of the path-goal theory, it would be difficult to utilize it in every leadership scenario. For instance, at my last job, I work as a computer sales associate for a big brick and mortar electronic chain. Even though I had one manager who oversaw the computer department, I had eight managers in total. Assuming they were all taught to employ the path-goal theory to keep employees motivated to reaching department goals. How would all eight managers keep a consistency of using the same behavioral style on a single employee let alone the 65 employees who come and go throughout the day. With a speculative guess of about 35-full time employees and 80-part-time employees. One can perceive the difficulty of managers being able consistency use the correct behavioral style on their employees. Thus, the path-goal theory better suits a leader-follower situation where the leader is better acquainted with his or her followers. Such as my current job at a machine shop. It is a small family business of about 50 full-time employees. It is a shop were tenure is important to management and turnover is very low. Thus, our three managers have had lots of time getting to know their employee’s personalities, aptitudes, and how to apply the correct behavioral style to given situation (Northouse, 2016).

In concluding, the path-goal theory does not seem to be a practical leadership approach since it utilizes some guesswork to predict what actions a leader should take towards his or her followers. On the other hand, the theory’s basis for motivating followers is also based on some perceptional guesswork as well. However, the path-goal theory “effectiveness depends on the fit between the leader’s behavior and the characteristics of followers and task” (Northouse, 2016, p. 135). Yet, the path-goal theory is innovative in the sense it tries to integrate motivation directly into a leadership theory, versus motivation just being a by-product of a good and or effective leadership (Northouse, 2016).

References

Crace, D. (2014, 01 27). Goal-Setting. Proper Goal Setting For Powerful PPC Campaigns. Internet Marketing Inc.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership Theory and Practice (7th Edition). London, United Kingdom: SAGE Publications, Inc.

YourCoach. (2018, n.d. n.d.). Vroom expectancy motivation theory. Retrieved from Your Coach: http://www.yourcoach.be/en/employee-motivation-theories/vroom-expectancy-motivation-theory.php

Skip to toolbar