Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Captain Picard and the Path-Goal Theory

by

In exploring this week’s leadership theories, I couldn’t help but relate one to a very famous leader in one of my favorite TV shows. The path-goal theory of leadership is perfectly encapsulated in the character of Captain Jean-Luc Picard from the iconic TV series “Star Trek: The Next Generation.” Through Picard’s interactions with his crew and his decisions, we witness a living example of how the Path-Goal Theory operates within the dynamic environment of the Starship Enterprise.

The path-goal theory, as detailed by Northouse (2021), posits that a leader’s primary function is to clear the path toward the goal, making it easy for followers to achieve their objectives by providing necessary guidance, support, and rewards. This theory emphasizes the adaptability of leadership styles based on the situational context and the needs of the followers (Northouse, 2021). Captain Picard exemplifies this theory through his adaptive leadership style, which varies from directive to supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented, depending on the situation and the needs of his crew members. In episodes where the crew faces ambiguous or challenging situations, Picard often adopts a directive style, clearly outlining roles and tasks to ensure that objectives are understood and met. However, in moments requiring team input and creative problem-solving, he shifts to a more participative approach, valuing and seeking out the opinions and expertise of his crew.

In the episode “The Measure of a Man,” Picard demonstrates a directive leadership style by taking decisive action to protect Data’s rights (Frakes, 1989). Picard clearly defines the path forward by researching legal precedents and constructing a compelling argument to defend Data’s autonomy (Frakes, 1989). His approach leaves no ambiguity about his expectations for the crew’s support and the strategic direction they will take.

Conversely, in “Chain of Command, Part II,” Picard’s experience as a prisoner of war showcases his ability to provide emotional support (Bowman, 1992). Even in captivity, his concern for his crew’s welfare and his encouragement under duress exemplify supportive leadership (Bowman, 1992). This not only motivates his crew to work towards his rescue but also maintains morale under challenging circumstances.

A participative approach is vividly displayed in “Darmok,” where Picard and an alien captain must overcome communication barriers (Piller, 1991). Picard actively involves his crew in deciphering the alien language, demonstrating his belief in collaborative problem-solving and the value of diverse perspectives (Piller, 1991).

Finally, Picard often adopts an achievement-oriented style, setting high standards and challenging his crew to excel, as seen in “All Good Things” (Braga & Moore, 1994). He inspires his team to surpass their limitations and achieve their best, fostering a culture of excellence and innovation.

Through the lens of Captain Jean-Luc Picard’s leadership in “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” we gain insights into the practical application of the Path-Goal Theory. Picard’s adaptive leadership style illustrates how varying one’s approach based on the needs of the situation and the followers can lead to effective leadership and the achievement of goals (Northouse, 2021). His character serves as a compelling example for leaders aiming to navigate the complexities of guiding diverse teams in dynamic environments.

 

References

Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and Practice (9th ed.). Sage Publications.

Frakes, J. (Director). (1989). The Measure of a Man [Television series episode]. In Star Trek: The Next Generation. Paramount Pictures.

Bowman, R. (Director). (1992). Chain of Command, Part II [Television series episode]. In Star Trek: The Next Generation. Paramount Pictures.

Piller, M. (Writer), & Winrich, L. (Director). (1991). Darmok [Television series episode]. In Star Trek: The Next Generation. Paramount Pictures.

Braga, B., & Moore, R. D. (Writers), & Bole, C. (Director). (1994). All Good Things… [Television series episode]. In Star Trek: The Next Generation. Paramount Pictures.

Why Superiors Can’t be Your Friend

by

While many leadership theories underscore the importance of building positive employee relationships, it is very important to understand that a manager’s role is distinct from that of a friend. This notion will be evaluated by employing Fiedler’s Contingency Theory (The Pennsylvania State University [PSU], 2023) and the Path-Goal Theory (Northouse, 2022) to analyze a scenario where a manager, striving for amicable employee relationships, had to transition from a friend to a more authoritative figure.

Various leadership frameworks promote the benefits of managers fostering positive coworker relationships, as these are integral to a productive workplace atmosphere. Fiedler’s Contingency Model, with its least-preferred-coworker (LPC) scale, enables the identification of a leader’s predominant style, and further states that leadership behavior is generally consistent (PSU, 2023). Leaders are categorized as low-LPC or high-LPC, reflecting whether task completion or fostering positive follower relationships motivates them (PSU, 2023). For relationship-oriented managers (high-LPC), job fulfillment comes from cultivating positive interactions with colleagues.

The Path-Goal Theory emphasizes a leader’s responsibility to inspire followers to achieve their goals (Northouse, 2022). It advocates for leaders to pave the way by providing rewards and removing impediments, ensuring goal attainment. Supportive and directive leadership styles are integral to this theory (Northouse, 2022), with supportive leaders aiming for pleasant, equal workplaces, and directive leaders focusing on setting clear expectations and standards. Let’s explore a case study illustrating the evolution of a manager’s relationship with his team due to organizational dynamics.

Kevin, a manager at a quickly growing tech company, was initially successful in building positive relationships with the three junior developers under his leadership. Scoring high on the LPC scale, his sense of fulfillment was closely tied to the strength of these professional bonds (PSU, 2023). However, the company’s escalating success necessitated an expansion of his team, leading to a more diverse array of experiences and expectations for the team. Kevin remained committed to maintaining amicable relations with all team members, new and old alike. However, he soon found that two of the original junior developers were struggling with the increased demands of the expanding company. Kevin, drawing upon the principles of the Path-Goal Theory, wanted to address this by facilitating their enrollment in a mid-level coding bootcamp. This strategy was intended not only to bolster their technical competencies, but also to smooth the path of their professional journey, aligning with the Path-Goal Theory’s emphasis on removing obstacles and fostering goal attainment (Northouse, 2022). To encourage their participation, Kevin successfully negotiated with the upper management to provide time off as an incentive for their skill enhancement.

Despite these arrangements, the two junior developers, perhaps thinking of Kevin more as a friend than a manager, declined the learning opportunity. They believed that their existing skills sufficed, underestimating the need for continuous development. As the situation continued to unravel, the upper levels of management presented Kevin with an unfortunate choice. He had to rapidly increase the performance of the struggling developers or make the difficult decision to let them go. Kevin, after exhausting all avenues of support and encouragement, and faced with the developers’ unwillingness to improve, reluctantly chose the latter option. The resulting departure of the two developers severed any bonds of friendship they had with Kevin. A few weeks after, the remaining original junior developer, disillusioned by this event and feeling a sense of betrayal, handed in his resignation. He stated that the dismissal of his colleagues was the primary reason for his departure, and was opting to join them at another company. This departure was particularly impactful, as this developer held extensive knowledge of the product’s workings, leaving a significant void in the team.

Kevin found himself at a crossroads, reflecting deeply on the balance between being approachable and maintaining the necessary authority. He acknowledged the need to reconsider his leadership style, incorporating a more directive leadership style to ensure the clarity of expectations and alignment of goals (Northouse, 2022). This shift was not a direct transition from the supportive leadership style, but rather an adaptation to ensure he could incorporate both styles to better balance friendliness and managerial decisiveness, as is allowed and even encouraged by the Path-Goal Theory (Northouse, 2022).

Kevin’s journey emphasizes the fragile balance that every manager must navigate, showcasing the importance of adopting a leadership approach that skillfully blends the merits of both friendship and authority. In a final analysis, managers, when confronted with important decisions, are obligated to prioritize the overarching goals of the organization. The Path-Goal Theory supports the removal of barriers to employee success (Northouse, 2022), yet Kevin’s experience underscores the imperative need for a balanced interplay between amicability and authority, particularly for those who are high-LPC leaders (PSU, 2023). In essence, his narrative illustrates the delicate harmony between nurturing interpersonal relationships and steadfastly fulfilling managerial duties, shedding light on the complex dynamics in the realm of leadership.

 

Citations

Northouse, P. G. (2022). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). SAGE Publishing.

The Pennsylvania State University. (2023). Fiedler’s contingency model – The least preferred coworker scale [Lecture notes]. Canvas@PSU. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2283258/modules/items/38927185

Applying Leadership Behaviors to the Real World

by

In this lesson we read about the Path-goal theory. The path-goal theory is based on how leaders motivate their followers to achieve goals (Hamel, 2021). According to the path-goal theory, effective leaders provide rewards for their followers, which are considered the “goals”. Effective leaders also guide their followers to the best way of getting to that goal, which is considered the “path” (Hamel, 2021). A good leader’s actions should help a follower believe, that if they put in effort, they will complete a task, which will lead to a desired outcome (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012). The path-goal theory believes that a leader must understand what leadership style motivates their followers, and how to use that style effectively (Hamel, 2021). Simply put, when followers are on a path to their goals, they will meet obstacles and it is the leader’s role to help remove them.  

One of the strengths of the path-goal theory is that it provides us an understanding of how different leadership behaviors affect the satisfaction and work behaviors of followers (Hamel, 2021). The path-goal theory describes four different leader behaviors. As I was learning about them, I started wondering which of the four would work best in real life? Is one better than the other, or is it purely situation based? In this blog I will look at the four behavior styles individually and review them. The four leader behaviors that I will be reviewing are: directive leadership, supportive leadership, participative leadership, and achievement-oriented leadership. 

The directive leadership style is characterized by giving followers instructions of what is expected of them, how it is done, and what the time line is (Hamel, 2021). Directive leadership styles are common for instructors of large classes (Hamel, 2021). I believe that the directive leadership style is the easiest leadership style out of the four to adapt to any environment. I think that regardless of what the leader is in charge of, good instructions and having clear expectations is beneficial. However, I do agree that it is the most suitable for a leader that may be in charge of a large number of followers. By having clear directions, it is easier to avoid misunderstandings and get everyone on the same page. The supportive leadership style is known to be friendly and approachable (Hamel, 2021). The main goal of a supportive leader is to make their followers work pleasant (Hamel, 2021). I think that the supportive leadership style is perfect for a leader with a small number of followers that they work closely with. When a leader works closely with their followers, they should try and treat them well and make sure that they enjoy their work. I could see the supportive leadership style most suitable for a CEO of a very small business or for a personal trainer.  

Participative leadership is when leaders involve their followers in decision-making (Hamel, 2021). Participative leaders are known to consult their followers before making decisions and even rely on followers in making decision (Hamel, 2021). Out of the four leadership styles, I think that the participative leadership style is the one that would work in least cases. I believe that because I think most leaders want to make decisions and have some “power” over their followers. I do still believe that it works in some cases. A scenario where I think that the participative leadership would work well is when a leader is new to a field or new to the task at hand. In some cases, subordinates might have worked with a case or in a field for much longer than a leader. In those cases, a leader should let their subordinates participate and be a part of decision making. Even though the leader might have the final say in decisions, they should definitely include the followers in the decision-making process. The last leadership style is achievement-oriented leadership. For achievement-oriented leadership, it is typical to challenge followers to perform work at the highest level possible (Hamel, 2021). These leaders have high standards for their followers, and continuously try to improve them (Hamel, 2021). I think that achievement-oriented leaders are best suitable for groups where the followers are highly motivated. A good example of this would be a Coach on a division 1 sports team where the players are highly motivated and willing to be challenged.  

So which leadership style is best in the real world? First, we have to remember that leaders can change their styles with different followers and different situations (Hamel, 2021). A leadership style is not set in stone, the same leader could use several styles. However, I do believe that some styles are better than others based on the variability that they have. Like I mentioned earlier, the directive leadership style works well in most environments. I cannot think of the harm of having good directions and expectations, no matter who the followers are. I also think that the directive style allows the followers to have the freedom of dealing with issues in their own way. Unlike the other leadership styles, the directive leader lets the followers know what is expected, and lets them handle the work more freely. Personally, I would prefer the directive leadership style over the other three. The directive style works in most environments, as well as allows the followers to do work freely while having clear guidelines. Therefore, I think that it is the best and most useful leadership style. Lastly, I do still think that the most successful leaders combine some of the leadership styles depending on what the followers require. I do not think that there is only one leadership style that works, they can all be beneficial in some cases.

References:

Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (2012). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies.

Hamel, R. (2021). Lesson 6: Contingency & Path-Goal Theories

Leadership Vs. Leadership

by

Today I was responding to one of my classmates’ discussion that she had posted regarding leadership and mentorship “speakers”, also known as “motivational speaker. This topic aroused some unknown emotions, well I know what those emotions are but let’s not talk about emotions. Let’s talk about leadership. As we know Maxim vs Scientific theory is something called Scientific research and data. These motivational or “leadership” or so called “leaders” are a good example of a Maxim view.

Why do I say that? Well because not everyone is born in a same country, same city, same house with the same parents, given the same opportunities, and I am guessing most of us were not born with silver spoons in our mouths. So, my question to this so-called leader speakers that sometimes charge an entrance fee and sometimes don’t to their lectures, is what is that magical secret I the book that you are selling at the end of your seminar? So, I am guessing if I can’t afford $50 I am denied the magical secret.

And therefore folks, we have leaders and we have real educated leaders that dedicated their whole lives to research on bettering human and even animal’s conditions. I am speaking of those educators who don’t charge to give you what you need to advance in life. Well let us stay on topic of leadership. You don’t need to pay your boss or leader to motivate you. Explain to your leaders about Path-Goal Theory. Path-goal theory is about how leaders motivate followers to accomplish designated goals (Northouse, 2016, p.115)

In a more simpler way to explain this theory, I believe that the leaders must work around the employee’s motivational needs. That to me that just sounds awesome. I’ve heard that not only google©, but Facebook©, are using exactly that. They have break rooms for employees to play video games, take a nap, play ping pong, foosball, etc. I wonder what their cafeteria would be like, or even their restroom? I am very impressed to say the least, by this leadership method that these companies avail for their employees. The question is why? Because happy employees, equals better employee performance.

The above-mentioned path-goal theory that I believe companies like google are using is called Supportive Leadership. To be a supportive leader, you must be supportive, approachable by the employees, and always friendly and attend to their needs. These leaders make the work environment pleasant for their employees, and the main key in my opinion is being looked at as equals. That’s right! These leaders treat their followers as equals and give them what every man wants, respect.

References:

Northouse, P.G., (2016). Psychology 485: Leadership: Theory and Practice. Lesson 6: Path-Goal Theory. Los Angeles: Sage Publications

Penn State University, (2018). Psychology 485: Leadership: Theory and Practice. Lesson 6: Path-Goal Theory.

Fundraiser Leadership

by

Recently, a family that used to belong to my church was in a car accident, resulting in a traumatic brain injury in their son. Eric recently was able to return home after over 100 days at three different hospitals, but is unable to walk, talk, play, and do most things that most eight-year-olds and their families take for granted. Even with health insurance, many things that Eric needs are not covered, or the items provided are the lowest quality available, such as his hospital bed. Many community members, and people all over the state have donated money, and fundraisers are being held to help support the healing and needs of his family. My sister Janice recently led the planning and execution of one such fundraiser. An Italian dinner was held at our church, along with a basket raffle, bake sale, and craft sale. This fundraiser raised over $6000 for Eric’s family. The average fundraiser dinner for our church over the past few years pulls in around $2000. What made Janice’s fundraiser so successful? There is little doubt that the success can be attributed to her effective leadership skills, particularly her ability to use different leadership styles in various situations.

The Path-Goal theory of leadership emphasizes the relationship between leadership style and both the characteristics of the followers and the task at hand (Northouse, 2016). Essentially, it postulates that leaders are responsible for assisting their followers along a path to reach their goals; and leaders do that most successfully by using a leadership style best suited for both the situation and their followers’ needs (Northouse, 2016). Four types of leadership behaviors are described by Northouse: directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented. Depending on the followers and the situation characteristics, one or more of these styles of behavior may be needed or displayed in a situation. Depending on the characteristics of the followers and the situation, certain styles are better in certain situations. Janice displayed two these styles at various times in the planning and execution of this fundraiser, each of which was appropriate for the tasks at hand.

Janice was presented with the idea of having this fundraiser dinner by my 16-year-old niece Kayla. In the beginning, the task was very ambiguous: hold a dinner to raise money for Eric’s family. The followers, Kayla, her friends, and some family and church members, needed control and clarity. Although Kayla was highly ambitious, she is young and needed structure and guidance. Northouse explains that the best leadership style in a situation where the task is ambiguous and the followers need control and clarity is participative leadership (2016, p. 121). Janice used this style in the planning process. She had Kayla and the other volunteers participate in the planning. She consulted with others and helped integrate their suggestions and ideas into actual decisions regarding what the dinner would entail, fleshing out the activities, menu, price, etc.

When the actual event day came around, although there were some clear elements to the tasks at hand (people need to get their food, plates need to be cleaned, etc), the situation in general was kind of ambiguous as to how each of these things needed to happen. It was also a complex situation, as different events were happening upstairs and downstairs in the church, and many different things needed to be happening simultaneously. In the hours leading up to the dinner, Janice continued to use participative leadership style, getting volunteers’ input on how things should flow and where different events, such as the basket raffle, should be set up. Closer to event execution, Janice became more of a directive leader, which can also be effective in ambiguous situations (Northouse, 2016). She gave specific people clear tasks, divvying up the areas and responsibilities to the various volunteers. For example, certain people were specifically assigned to make pasta, clean tables, guide guests, etc. This was the best leadership style as without clear direction, volunteers would not know what to do. As many of the volunteers were teenagers, the structure was needed.

There are so many ways that Janice helped lead her volunteers along the path to successful goal completion, outdoing the previous fundraisers held before. Northouse defines four things that leaders are responsible to do to help their followers towards their goal: defining the goals, clarifying the path, removing obstacles along the path, and providing support. Janice defined clear goals and clarified to the volunteers how to reach them on the day of the event. When situations arose during the event, such as when we almost ran out of butter, Janice was on top of the situation and delegated someone to get more. Support was provided to volunteers on many levels. Janice was encouraging and kind, but also clear and unwavering when she gave tasks to do. Overall, the profound success of this fundraiser can be attributed to Janice’s ability to use the characteristics of her followers and the tasks at hand to help guide her styles of leadership she used.

References:

Northouse, Peter G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

SAGE Publications, Inc.

Skip to toolbar