psych leader

6 PATH–GOAL THEORY

DESCRIPTION

Path–goal theory discusses how leaders motivate followers to accomplish designated goals. Drawing heavily from research on what motivates followers, path–goal theory first appeared in the leadership literature in the early 1970s in the works of Evans (1970), House (1971), House and Dessler (1974), and House and Mitchell (1974). The stated goal of this theory is to enhance follower performance and follower satisfaction by focusing on follower motivation and the nature of the work tasks. At its inception, path–goal theory was incredibly innovative in the sense that it shifted attention to follower needs and motivations, and away from the predominant focus on tasks and relationships.

In contrast to the situational approach, which suggests that a leader must adapt to the development level of followers (see  Chapter 5), path–goal theory emphasizes the relationship between the leader’s style and the characteristics of the followers and the organizational setting. For the leader, the imperative is to use a leadership style that best meets followers’ motivational needs. This is done by choosing behaviors that complement or supplement what is missing in the work setting. Leaders try to enhance followers’ goal attainment by providing information or rewards in the work environment (Indvik, 1986); leaders provide followers with the elements they think followers need to reach their goals. According to House (1996), the heart of path–goal theory suggests that for leaders to be effective they must “engage in behaviors that complement subordinates’ environments and abilities in a manner that compensates for deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction and individual and work unit performance” (p. 335). Put simply, path–goal theory puts much of the onus on leaders in terms of designing and facilitating a healthy and productive work environment to propel followers toward success.

According to House and Mitchell (1974), leadership generates motivation when it increases the number and kinds of payoffs that followers receive from their work. Leadership also motivates when it makes the path to the goal clear and easy to travel through coaching and direction, removing obstacles and roadblocks to attaining the goal, and making the work itself more personally satisfying ( Figure 6.1). For example, even in professions where employees are presumed to be self-motivated such as in technical industries, leaders can greatly enhance follower motivation, engagement, satisfaction, performance, and intent to stay (Stumpf, Tymon, Ehr, & vanDam, 2016). Relatedly, research (Asamani, Naab, & Ansah Ofei, 2016) indicates that follower satisfaction and intent to leave are greatly impacted by a leader’s communicative style. In other words, employing path–goal theory in terms of leader behavior and the needs of followers and the tasks they have to do could hold substantial implications for organizations that seek to enhance follower engagement and motivation while also decreasing turnover.

Figure 6.1 The Basic Idea Behind Path–Goal Theory

In brief, path–goal theory is designed to explain how leaders can help followers along the path to their goals by selecting specific behaviors that are best suited to followers’ needs and to the situation in which followers are working. By choosing the appropriate behaviors, leaders increase followers’ expectations for success and satisfaction.

Within path–goal theory, motivation is conceptualized from the perspective of the expectancy theory of motivation (Vroom, 1964). The underlying assumption of expectancy theory is that followers will be motivated if they think they are capable of performing their work, if they believe their efforts will result in a certain outcome, and if they believe that the payoffs for doing their work are worthwhile. Motivation rests with individuals and the choices they make about how a given behavior matches up with a given result. The challenge for a leader using ideas from expectancy theory is to understand fully the goals of each follower and the rewards associated with the goals. Followers want to feel efficacious, like they can accomplish what they set out to do. But they also want to know that they will be rewarded if they can accomplish their work. A leader needs to find out what is rewarding to followers about their work and then make those rewards available to them when they accomplish the requirements of their work. Expectancy theory is about the goals that followers choose and how leaders help them and reward them for meeting those goals.

Conceptually, path–goal theory is complex, and it is useful to break it down into smaller units so we can better understand the complexities of this approach.

Figure 6.2 illustrates the different components of path–goal theory, including leader behaviors, follower characteristics, task characteristics, and motivation. Path–goal theory suggests that each type of leader behavior has a different kind of impact on followers’ motivation. Whether a particular leader behavior is motivating to followers is contingent on the followers’ characteristics and the characteristics of the task.

Figure 6.2 Major Components of Path–Goal Theory

Leader Behaviors

Since its inception, path–goal leadership has undergone numerous iterations and revisions (i.e., House, 1971, 1996; House & Mitchell, 1974) that have increased the number of contingencies associated with the theory. However, for our purposes, we will discuss only the primary four leadership behaviors identified as part of path–goal theory— directive, supportive, participative, and  achievement oriented (House & Mitchell, 1974, p. 83). These four leader behaviors are not only foundational to understanding how path–goal theory works but are still more commonly used by researchers in contemporary studies of the path–goal leadership approach (e.g., Asamani et al., 2016).

Directive Leadership

Directive leadership is similar to the “initiating structure” concept described in the Ohio State studies (Halpin & Winer, 1957), discussed in  Chapter 4, and the “telling” style described in the situational leadership approach (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969), the subject of  Chapter 5. It characterizes a leader who gives followers instructions about their task, including what is expected of them, how it is to be done, and the timeline for when it should be completed. It is thought that by being provided with explicit expectations and removing ambiguity, followers will have the clarity needed to focus on their jobs. A directive leader sets clear standards of performance and makes the rules and regulations clear to followers.

A good example of a directive leader is Professor Smith, discussed in  Chapter 4 (page 93), an instructor who, at the beginning of a term, provides a syllabus to students that outlines what will be studied in the course, what chapters in a text to read, deadlines for assignments, and when tests will be administered. Often these syllabi will also outline grading policies so students know what scores are required to earn certain grades.

Supportive Leadership

Supportive leadership resembles the “consideration” behavior construct identified by the Ohio State studies (Hemphill & Coons, 1957; Stogdill, 1963). Supportive leadership consists of being friendly and approachable as a leader and includes attending to the well-being and human needs of followers. Leaders using supportive behaviors go out of their way to make work pleasant for followers, which, in turn, provides followers with the confidence necessary to succeed(House, 1971). In addition, supportive leaders treat followers as equals and give them respect for their status.

To understand the supportive leader role, consider the example of a coordinator of volunteers assigned to clean up trash and litter after an outdoor music festival. The task itself is not especially pleasant, especially in the hot sun, but the coordinator makes sure there are cool beverages and snacks for the volunteers, as well as a meal at the conclusion of their work. To give them extra incentive, he has developed a game of “trash bingo” in which volunteers have to find an array of items, such as caps to specific beverage bottles or pieces of trash in different colors, to win prizes. As the volunteers work, he walks among them, pulling a wagon filled with cold drinks, snacks, extra trash bags, sunscreen, and other necessities, which he offers them while asking each of them how they are doing and if they need anything.

Participative Leadership

Participative leadership consists of inviting followers to share in the decision making. A participative leader consults with followers, obtains their ideas and opinions, and integrates their suggestions into the decisions about how the group or organization will proceed. This particular leadership style may also result in increased group performance through member participation and dedication to shared group goals.

An example of a participative leader is the owner and chef of a fine dining restaurant that became very popular shortly after its opening. To deal with the “growing pains” of this quick success, she has regular weekly meetings with her staff to talk about what is working and what’s not and how to improve processes. She looks to the servers to tell her about menu items that should be changed and has the kitchen staff discuss how changes to the menu can be implemented. At the same time, they all discuss plans to scale up the restaurant’s capacity to lower the wait times for customers, without sacrificing quality.

Achievement-Oriented Leadership

Achievement-oriented leadership is characterized by a leader who challenges followers to perform work at the highest level possible. This leader establishes a high standard of excellence for followers and seeks continuous improvement. In addition to bringing significant expectations for followers, achievement-oriented leaders show a high degree of confidence that followers are capable of establishing and accomplishing challenging goals.

The captain of a firefighting crew that deals with wildfires is an example of an achievement-oriented leader. The goal for the crew is to contain the fire while saving property and people. The captain rigorously trains his crew members in the months before wildfire season, running them through countless drills that practice safety and firefighting methods so that they can perform at their highest level in the face of danger. For each drill, the captain grades crew members on a scale from 1 to 10. Those crew members who score the highest on the drills receive a special award at the end of training.

House and Mitchell (1974) suggested that leaders might exhibit any or all of these styles with various followers and in different situations. Path–goal theory is not a trait approach that locks leaders into only one kind of leadership. Leaders should adapt their styles to the situation or to the motivational needs of their followers. For example, if followers need participative leadership at one point in a task and directive leadership at another, leaders can change their style as needed. Different situations may call for different types of leadership behavior. Furthermore, there may be instances when it is appropriate for a leader to use more than one style at the same time.

In addition to leader behaviors,  Figure 6.2 illustrates two other major components of path–goal theory: follower characteristics and task characteristics. Each of these two sets of characteristics influences the way leaders’ behaviors affect follower motivation. In other words, the impact of leadership is  contingent on the characteristics of both followers and their task.

Follower Characteristics

Follower characteristics determine how a leader’s behavior is interpreted by followers in a given work context. Researchers have focused on followers’  needs for affiliation, preferences for structure, desires for control , and  self-perceived level of task ability. These characteristics and many others determine the degree to which followers find the behavior of a leader an immediate source of satisfaction or instrumental to some future satisfaction. As we discuss these follower characteristics, it is helpful to relate them to the characteristics exhibited by the athletes and coach of the Navarro College cheerleading team (Case Study 4.3). College-level competitive cheer is physically demanding and dangerous, and the coach of this 40-member team knows that each athlete has different follower characteristics that she must respond to in order to keep the individual athletes motivated to put in the hard work and practice required for the team to win at the national competition.

Path–goal theory predicts that followers who have strong  needs for affiliation  prefer supportive leadership because friendly and concerned leadership is a source of satisfaction. For many of the Navarro College cheer team’s athletes, having been chosen by Coach Monica Aldama to be part of this elite squad makes them feel special and talented. The coach continues to foster those feelings in them by verbally recognizing her team members’ hard work at practices and by attending to them individually when they need support.

For followers who are dogmatic and authoritarian and have to work in uncertain situations, path–goal theory suggests directive leadership because task clarity satisfies their  preferences for structure . Directive leadership helps these followers by clarifying the path to the goal, making it less ambiguous. The authoritarian type of follower feels more comfortable when the leader provides a greater sense of certainty in the work setting. By establishing a mandatory, consistent team practice schedule and policies regarding the athletes’ class attendance, practices, and personal conduct, Coach Aldama provides a very clear structure for her athletes. They know what is expected of them and what the consequences are if those expectations are not met.

Followers’  desires for control  have received special attention in path–goal research through studies of a personality construct locus of control that can be subdivided into internal and external dimensions. Followers with an  internal locus of control believe that they are in charge of the events that occur in their life, whereas those with an  external locus of control believe that chance, fate, or outside forces determine life events. Path–goal theory suggests that for followers with an internal locus of control participative leadership is most satisfying because it allows them to feel in charge of their work and to be an integral part of decision making. For followers with an external locus of control, path–goal theory suggests that directive leadership is best because it parallels followers’ feelings that outside forces control their circumstances. On the Navarro College cheer team, Coach Aldama’s assistant coach exhibits his internal locus of control in directing practices and also in participating with Coach Aldama regarding who will make the final cut for the team. On the other hand, for those athletes who have an external locus of control, Coach Aldama has to be very directive and tell them exactly what she needs from them.

Another way in which leadership affects follower motivation is the followers’  self-perceived level of task ability  to perform a specific task. As followers’ perceptions of their abilities and competence go up, the need for directive leadership goes down. In effect, directive leadership becomes redundant and perhaps excessively controlling when followers feel competent to complete their own work. Through grueling, two-a-day practices, the cheer team’s athletes become stronger and more competent performing the stunts, tumbling, and moves of the routine. As they do, their coach is able to pull back from directing them on their performance, instead focusing on the details that will enhance the team’s routine. Athletes who do not gain confidence in their own abilities to be able to perform without direction will not make the cut for the 20-person competition squad.

Task Characteristics

In addition to follower characteristics, task characteristics have a major impact on the way a leader’s behavior influences followers’ motivation ( Figure 6.2). Task characteristics include the  design of the followers’ task , the  formal authority system  of the organization, and the  primary work group of followers . Collectively, these characteristics in themselves can provide motivation for followers. When a situation provides a clearly structured task, strong group norms, and an established authority system, followers will find the paths to desired goals apparent and will not need a leader to clarify goals or coach them in how to reach these goals. Followers will feel as if they can accomplish their work and that their work is of value. Leadership in these types of contexts could be seen as unnecessary, un-empathic, and excessively controlling.

In some situations, however, the  design of the task  characteristics may call for leadership involvement. Tasks that are unclear and ambiguous call for leadership input that provides structure. In addition, highly repetitive tasks call for leadership that gives support to maintain followers’ motivation. In work settings where the  formal authority system  is weak, leadership becomes a tool that helps followers by making the rules and work requirements clear. In contexts where the  primary work group  norms are weak or nonsupportive, leadership assists in building cohesiveness and role responsibility.

A special focus of path–goal theory is helping followers overcome obstacles. Obstacles could be just about anything in the work setting that gets in the way of followers. Specifically, obstacles create excessive uncertainties, frustrations, or threats for followers. In these settings, path–goal theory suggests that it is the leader’s responsibility to help followers by removing these obstacles or helping followers to navigate around them. Helping followers around these obstacles will increase followers’ expectations that they can complete the task and increase their sense of job satisfaction. In coaching the Navarro cheer team, Coach Aldama sometimes finds elements of the routines that have been developed for her team to be too challenging for her athletes to accomplish. As a leader she will try to solve these issues by reworking the routine’s elements and guiding the athletes on skills to help them master these elements.

As we mentioned earlier in the chapter, path–goal theory has undergone many revisions. In 1996, House published a reformulated path–goal theory that extends his original work to include eight classes of leadership behaviors. Besides the four leadership behaviors discussed previously in this chapter—(a) directive, (b) supportive, (c) participative, and (d) achievement-oriented behavior—the new theory adds (e) work facilitation, (f) group-oriented decision process, (g) work-group representation and networking, and (h) value-based leadership behavior. The essence of the new theory is the same as the original: To be effective, leaders need to help followers by giving them what is missing in their environment and by helping them compensate for deficiencies in their abilities.

HOW DOES PATH–GOAL THEORY WORK?

Path–goal theory is an approach to leadership that is not only theoretically complex, but also pragmatic. It provides a set of assumptions about how various leadership styles interact with characteristics of both followers and the work setting to affect the motivation of followers. In practice, the theory provides direction about how leaders can help followers to accomplish their work in a satisfactory manner.  Table 6.1 illustrates how leadership behaviors are related to follower and task characteristics in path–goal theory.

Table 6.1 Path–Goal Theory: How It Works

Leadership Behavior	Follower Characteristics	Task Characteristics
Directive Leadership Provides structure	Dogmatic Authoritarian	Ambiguous Unclear rules Complex
Supportive Leadership Provides nurturance	Unsatisfied Need for affiliation Need for human touch	Repetitive Unchallenging Mundane
Participative Leadership Provides involvement	Autonomous Need for control Need for clarity	Ambiguous Unclear Unstructured
Achievement-Oriented Leadership Provides challenges	High expectations Need to excel	Ambiguous Challenging Complex

Theoretically, the path–goal approach suggests that leaders need to choose a leadership style that best fits the needs of followers and the work they are doing. The theory predicts that a  directive style  of leadership is best in situations in which followers are dogmatic and authoritarian, the task demands are ambiguous, the organizational rules are unclear, and the task is complex. In these situations, directive leadership complements the work by providing guidance and psychological structure for followers (House & Mitchell, 1974, p. 90).

For tasks that are structured, unsatisfying, or frustrating, path–goal theory suggests that leaders should use a  supportive style . The supportive style provides what is missing by nurturing followers when they are engaged in tasks that are repetitive and unchallenging. Supportive leadership offers a sense of human touch for followers engaged in mundane, mechanized activity.

Participative leadership  is considered best when a task is ambiguous: Participation gives greater clarity to how certain paths lead to certain goals, and helps followers learn what leads to what (House & Mitchell, 1974, p. 92). In addition, participative leadership has a positive impact when followers are autonomous and have a strong need for control because this kind of follower responds favorably to being involved in decision making and in the structuring of work.

Furthermore, path–goal theory predicts that  achievement-oriented leadership  is most effective in settings in which followers are required to perform ambiguous tasks. In settings such as these, leaders who challenge and set high standards for followers raise followers’ confidence that they have the ability to reach their goals. In effect, achievement-oriented leadership helps followers feel that their efforts will result in effective performance. In settings where the task is more structured and less ambiguous, however, achievement-oriented leadership appears to be unrelated to followers’ expectations about their work efforts.

Pragmatically, path–goal theory is straightforward. An effective leader has to attend to the needs of followers. The leader should help followers to define their goals and the paths they want to take in reaching those goals. When obstacles arise, the leader needs to help followers confront them. This may mean helping a follower around the obstacle, or it may mean removing an obstacle. The leader’s job is to help followers reach their goals by directing, guiding, and coaching them along the way.

STRENGTHS

Path–goal theory has several positive features. First, path–goal theory provides a useful theoretical framework for understanding how various leadership behaviors affect followers’ satisfaction and work performance. It was one of the first theories to specify conceptually distinct varieties of leadership (e.g., directive, supportive, participative, achievement oriented), expanding the focus of prior research, which dealt exclusively with task- and relationship-oriented behaviors (Jermier, 1996). The path–goal approach was also one of the first situational contingency theories of leadership to explain how task and follower characteristics affect the impact of leadership on follower performance. The framework provided in path–goal theory informs leaders about how to choose an appropriate leadership style based on the various demands of the task and the type of followers being asked to do the task. Additionally, later iterations of the theory offer suggestions for how to motivate work groups for increased collaboration and enhanced performance.

A second positive feature of path–goal theory is that it attempts to integrate the motivation principles of expectancy theory into a theory of leadership. This makes path–goal theory unique because no other leadership approach deals directly with motivation in this way. Path–goal theory forces us continually to ask questions such as these about follower motivation: How can I motivate followers to feel that they can do the work? How can I help them feel that if they successfully do their work, they will be rewarded? What can I do to improve the payoffs that followers expect from their work? Understanding the processes and dynamics behind motivation is critical in any organization (Kanfer, Frese, & Johnson, 2017), and path–goal theory is designed to keep those questions that address issues of motivation at the forefront of the leader’s mind.

Path–goal’s third strength, and perhaps its greatest, is that the theory provides a model that in certain ways is very practical. The representation of the model ( Figure 6.1) underscores and highlights the important ways leaders help followers. It shouts out for leaders to clarify the paths to the goals and remove or help followers around the obstacles to the goals. In its simplest form, the theory reminds leaders that the overarching purpose of leadership is to guide and coach followers as they move along the path to achieve a goal. The theory includes characteristics of both the followers and the situation and is more comprehensive than prior contingency theories.

CRITICISMS

Although path–goal theory has various strengths, it also has several identifiable weaknesses. First, path–goal theory is so complex and incorporates so many different aspects of leadership and related contingencies that interpreting the theory can be confusing. For example, path–goal theory makes predictions about which of the different leadership styles is appropriate for tasks with different degrees of structure, for goals with different levels of clarity, for followers at different levels of ability, and for organizations with different degrees of formal authority. To say the least, it is a daunting task to incorporate all these factors simultaneously into one’s selection of a preferred leadership style. Because the scope of path–goal theory is so broad and encompasses so many different interrelated sets of assumptions, it is difficult to use this theory fully in trying to improve the leadership process in a given organizational context. The theory also includes follower characteristics that include personality traits. Due to the complexity of the theory, there has not been a complete empirical test of its propositions.

A second limitation of path–goal theory is that it has received only partial support from the many empirical research studies that have been conducted to test its validity (House & Mitchell, 1974; Indvik, 1986; C. Schriesheim, Castro, Zhou, & DeChurch, 2006; C. Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977; J. Schriesheim & Schriesheim, 1980; Stinson & Johnson, 1975; Wofford & Liska, 1993). For example, some research supports the prediction that leader directiveness is positively related to follower satisfaction when tasks are ambiguous, but other research has failed to confirm this relationship.Furthermore, not all aspects of the theory have been given equal attention. A great deal of research has been designed to study directive and supportive leadership, but fewer studies address the other articulated leadership behaviors. The claims of path–goal theory remain tentative because the research findings to date do not provide a full and consistent picture of the basic assumptions and corollaries of path–goal theory (Evans, 1996; Jermier, 1996; C. Schriesheim & Neider, 1996). There also is some confusion in the literature due to several iterations of path–goal theory and House’s (1996) version having not been tested (Turner, Baker, & Kellner, 2018).

A third and more recent criticism is that the theory does not account for gender differences in how leadership is enacted or perceived (Mendez & Busenbark, 2015). Research has been done on the impact of gender on directive, supportive, and participative leadership but has not been integrated into path–goal theory. For example, Eagly and Johnson (1990) conducted a meta-analysis comparing leadership styles and found that women are more participative, while men are more directive. Other research has found that directive leadership by women is viewed negatively, regardless of whether path–goal theory prescribes it. Female leaders who show direction are negatively perceived compared to male leaders who demonstrate the same behavior (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992), particularly in “masculine” jobs (Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins, 2004). Race has also shown to be a factor—Black women and Asian women are perceived negatively when they show directive behavior (Rosette, Koval, Ma, & Livingston, 2016).

Another criticism of path–goal theory is that it fails to explain adequately the relationship between leadership behavior and follower motivation. Path–goal theory is unique in that it incorporates the tenets of expectancy theory; however, it does not go far enough in explicating how leadership is related to these tenets. The principles of expectancy theory suggest that followers will be motivated if they feel competent and trust that their efforts will get results, but path–goal theory does not describe how a leader could use various styles directly to help followers feel competent or assured of success. For example, path–goal theory does not explain how directive leadership during ambiguous tasks increases follower motivation. Similarly, it does not explain how supportive leadership during tedious work relates to follower motivation. The result is that practitioners are left with an inadequate understanding of how their leadership will affect followers’ expectations about their work.

In addition, path–goal theory presumes that leaders possess the advanced communication skills necessary to swiftly jockey between the various leadership behaviors to effectively interact with followers in all given situations. Without constant feedback from followers, the shifting of leader behavior among directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented behaviors may be viewed as inconsistent and confusing by followers.

A final criticism that can be made of path–goal theory concerns a practical outcome of the theory. Path–goal theory suggests that it is important for leaders to provide coaching, guidance, and direction for followers; to help followers define and clarify goals; and to help followers around obstacles as they attempt to reach their goals. Therefore, it is a “leader-centric” approach. As such, others have criticized the theory for relying on leader behavior as the primary means to motivate followers (Cote, 2017). In effect, this approach treats leadership as a one-way event: The leader affects the follower. The potential difficulty in this type of “helping” leadership is that followers may easily become dependent on the leader to accomplish their work. Path–goal theory places a great deal of responsibility on leaders and much less on followers. Over time, this kind of leadership could be counterproductive because it promotes dependency and fails to recognize the full abilities of followers.

APPLICATION

Path–goal theory is not an approach to leadership for which many management training programs have been developed. You will not find many seminars with titles such as “Improving Your Path–Goal Leadership” or “Assessing Your Skills in Path–Goal Leadership,” either. Nevertheless, path–goal theory does offer significant insights that can be applied in ongoing settings to improve one’s leadership.

Path–goal theory provides a set of general recommendations based on the characteristics of followers and tasks for how leaders should act in various situations if they want to be effective. It informs us about when to emphasize certain leader behaviors including clarifying goal behavior, lending support, and enhancing group decision-making processes, among others (House, 1996). For instance, the theory suggests that leaders should be directive when tasks are complex and that leaders should give support when tasks are dull. Similarly, it suggests that leaders should be participative when followers need control and that leaders should be achievement oriented when followers need to excel. In a general way, path–goal theory offers leaders a road map that gives directions about ways to improve follower satisfaction and performance.

The principles of path–goal theory can be used by leaders at all levels in the organization and for all types of tasks. To apply path–goal theory, a leader must carefully assess the followers and their tasks, and then choose an appropriate leadership style to match those characteristics. If followers are feeling insecure about doing a task, the leader needs to adopt a style that builds follower confidence. For example, in a university setting where junior faculty members feel apprehensive about their teaching and research, a department chair should give supportive leadership. By giving care and support, the chair helps the junior faculty members gain a sense of confidence about their ability to perform the work (Bess & Goldman, 2001). If followers are uncertain whether their efforts will result in reaching their goals, the leader needs to prove to them that their efforts will be rewarded. As discussed earlier in the chapter,  path–goal theory is useful because it continually reminds leaders that their central purpose is to help followers define their goals and then to help followers reach their goals in the most efficient manner.

CASE STUDIES AND SELF-ASSESSMENT

The following case studies ( Cases 6.1,  6.2, and  6.3) provide descriptions of various situations in which a leader is attempting to apply path–goal theory. The first case looks at the leadership of three managers at a manufacturing company. The second case is from the academic perspective of teaching orchestra students. The final case profiles football coach P. J. Fleck and how his unique leadership rejuvenated two floundering college teams. As you read the cases, try to apply the principles of path–goal theory to determine the degree to which you think the leaders in the cases have done a good job based on this theory.

Case 6.1 Three Shifts, Three Supervisors

Brako is a small manufacturing company that produces parts for the automobile industry. The company has several patents on parts that fit in the brake assembly of nearly all domestic and foreign cars. Each year, the company produces 3 million parts that it ships to assembly plants throughout the world. To produce the parts, Brako runs three shifts with about 40 workers on each shift.

The supervisors for the three shifts (Art, Bob, and Carol) are experienced employees, and each has been with the company for more than 20 years. The supervisors appear satisfied with their work and have reported no major difficulty in supervising employees at Brako.

Art supervises the first shift. Employees describe him as being a very hands-on type of leader. He gets very involved in the day-to-day operations of the facility. Workers joke that Art knows to the milligram the amount of raw materials the company has on hand at any given time. Art often can be found walking through the plant and reminding people of the correct procedures to follow in doing their work. Even for those working on the production line, Art always has some directions and reminders.

Workers on the first shift have few negative comments to make about Art’s leadership. However, they are negative about many other aspects of their work. Most of the work on this shift is very straightforward and repetitive; as a result, it is monotonous. The rules for working on the production line or in the packaging area are all clearly spelled out and require no independent decision making on the part of workers. Workers simply need to show up and go through the motions. On lunch breaks, workers often are heard complaining about how bored they are doing the same old thing over and over. Workers do not criticize Art, but they do not think he really understands their situation.

Bob supervises the second shift. He really enjoys working at Brako and wants all the workers on the afternoon shift to enjoy their work as well. Bob is a people-oriented supervisor whom workers describe as very genuine and caring. Hardly a day goes by that Bob does not post a message about someone’s birthday or someone’s personal accomplishment. Bob works hard at creating camaraderie, including sponsoring a company softball team, taking people out to lunch, and having people over to his house for social events.

Despite Bob’s personableness, absenteeism and turnover are highest on the second shift. The second shift is responsible for setting up the machines and equipment when changes are made from making one part to making another. In addition, the second shift is responsible for the complex computer programs that monitor the machines. Workers on the second shift take a lot of heat from others at Brako for not doing a good job.

Workers on the second shift feel pressure because it is not always easy to figure out how to do their tasks. Each setup is different and entails different procedures. Although the computer is extremely helpful when it is calibrated appropriately to the task, it can be extremely problematic when the software it uses is off the mark. Workers have complained to Bob and upper management many times about the difficulty of their jobs.

Carol supervises the third shift. Her style is different from that of the others at Brako. Carol routinely has meetings, which she labels troubleshooting sessions, for the purpose of identifying problems workers are experiencing. Any time there is a glitch on the production line, Carol wants to know about it so she can help workers find a solution. If workers cannot do a particular job, she shows them how. For those who are uncertain of their competencies, Carol gives reassurance. Carol tries to spend time with each worker and help the workers focus on their personal goals. In addition, she stresses company goals and the rewards that are available if workers are able to make the grade.

People on the third shift like to work for Carol. They find she is good at helping them do their job. They say she has a wonderful knack for making everything fall into place. When there are problems, she addresses them. When workers feel down, she builds them up. Carol was described by one worker as an interesting mixture of part parent, part coach, and part manufacturing expert. Upper management at Brako is pleased with Carol’s leadership, but they have experienced problems repeatedly when workers from Carol’s shift have been rotated to other shifts at Brako.

Questions

1. Based on the principles of path–goal theory, describe why Art and Bob appear to be less effective than Carol.

2. How does the leadership of each of the three supervisors affect the motivation of their respective followers?

3. If you were consulting with Brako about leadership, what changes and recommendations would you make regarding the supervision of Art, Bob, and Carol?

Case 6.2 Playing in the Orchestra

Martina Bates is the newly hired orchestra teacher at Middletown School District in rural Sparta, Kansas. After graduating from the Juilliard School of Music, Bates had intended to play violin professionally, but when no jobs became available, she accepted an offer to teach orchestra in her hometown, believing it would be a good place to hone her skills until a professional position became available.

Being the orchestra instructor at Middletown is challenging because it involves teaching music classes, directing the high school orchestra, and directing both the middle school and grade school orchestra programs. When classes started, Bates hit the ground running and found she liked teaching, and was exhilarated by her work with students. After her first year, however, she is having misgivings about her decision to teach. Most of all, she is feeling troubled by how different students are in each of the three programs, and how her leadership does not seem to be effective with all the students.

Running the elementary orchestra program is demanding, but fun. A lot of parents want their children to play an instrument, so the turnout for orchestra is really strong, and it is the largest of the three Middletown programs. Many students have never held an instrument before, so teaching them is quite a challenge. Learning to make the cornet sound like a cornet or moving the bow so a cello sounds like a cello is a huge undertaking. Whether it is drums, bass viol, clarinet, or saxophone, Bates patiently shows the kids how to play and consistently compliments them every small step of the way. First and foremost, she wants all of her learners to feel like they can “do it.” She instructs her students with great detail about how to hold the instruments, position their tongues, and read notes. They respond well to Bates’s kindness and forbearance, and the parents are thrilled. The orchestra’s spring concert had many wild sounds but was also wildly successful, with excited children and happy parents.

The middle school orchestra is somewhat smaller in size and presents different challenges for Bates. The students in this orchestra are starting to sound good on their instruments and are willing to play together as a group, but some of them are becoming disinterested and want to quit. Bates uses a different style of leadership with the middle schoolers, stressing practice and challenging students to improve their skills. At this level, students are placed in “chairs” for each instrument. The best players sit in the first chair, the next best are second chair, and so on down to the last chair. Each week, the students engage in “challenges” for the chairs. If students practice hard and improve, they can advance to a higher chair; students who don’t practice can slip down to a lower chair. Bates puts up charts to track students’ practice hours, and when they reach established goals, they can choose a reward from “the grab bag of goodies,” which has candy, trinkets, and gift cards. Never knowing what their prize will be motivates the students, especially as they all want to get the gift cards. Although some kids avoid practice because they find it tedious and boring, many enjoy it because it improves their performance, to say nothing about the chance to get a prize. The spring concert for this group is Bates’s favorite, because the sounds are better and the students are interested in playing well.

Middletown’s high school orchestra is actually very small, which is surprising to Bates. Why does she have nearly a hundred kids in the elementary orchestra and less than half that number in the high school program? She likes teaching the high school students, but they do not seem excited about playing. Because she is highly trained herself, Bates likes to show students advanced techniques and give them challenging music to play. She spends hours listening to each student play, providing individualized feedback that, unfortunately in many cases, doesn’t seem to have any impact on the students. For example, Chris Trotter, who plays third-chair trumpet, is considering dropping orchestra to go out for cross-country. Similarly, Lisa Weiss, who is first-chair flute, seems bored and may quit the orchestra to get a part-time job. Bates is frustrated and baffled; why would these students want to quit? They are pretty good musicians, and most of them are willing to practice. The students have such wonderful potential but don’t seem to want to use it. Students profess to liking Bates, but many of them just don’t seem to want to be in the orchestra.

Questions

1. Path–goal leadership is about how leaders can help followers reach their goals. Generally, what are the goals for the students in each of the different orchestras? What obstacles do they face? In what way does Bates help them address obstacles and reach their goals?

2. Based on the principles of expectancy theory described in the chapter, why is Bates effective with the elementary and middle school orchestras? Why do both of these groups seem motivated to play for her? In what ways did she change her leadership style for the middle schoolers?

3. Bates’s competencies as a musician do not seem to help her with the students who are becoming disinterested in orchestra. Why? Using ideas from expectancy theory, what would you advise her to do to improve her leadership with the high school orchestra?

4. Achievement-oriented leadership is one of the possible behaviors of path–goal leadership. For which of the three orchestras do you think this style would be most effective? Discuss.

Case 6.3 Row the Boat

When P. J. Fleck was a wide receivers’ coach for the Rutgers University football team, he told the team’s then offensive coordinator, Kirk Ciarrocca, that his goal was to become the youngest head football coach of a college team (Mattingly, 2017a).

Just two years later, at the age of 32, he was named the head coach of the Western Michigan University (WMU) Broncos, making him the youngest coach of a NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision team. When Coach Fleck took over the Broncos team, it had a 22–27 record. Four years later, the team was 13–1, became the Mid-American Conference (MAC) champion for the first time in 28 years, and earned a trip to the 2017 Cotton Bowl.

Coach Fleck then took the top coaching job at the University of Minnesota, a Big Ten school that hadn’t seen a championship season in 50 years. In just three seasons, he built another floundering team into a formidable one. In 2019, the Golden Gophers finished the season 10–2. They also tied for the Big Ten West title, the first time the team had won a share of a division title since the Big Ten began divisional play. Minnesota defeated No. 9 Auburn in the 2020 Outback Bowl for its 11th win, the team’s most since 1904.

The thing about being a successful football coach is that your success is based on how your players perform. Coach Fleck could only achieve his goals by setting goals for his players and then leading his players in achieving those. He boils down the ability to turn around a program into three pieces: the right people, cultural consistency, and the value of long-term vision over short-term desires (Giambalvo, 2019).

One of Coach Fleck’s first actions as coach at WMU was to rescind all the scholarship offers to incoming players who had verbally committed to attend the university in Kalamazoo, under the previous coach. The scholarship withdrawals occurred just weeks before the national signing day and left players unable to arrange other Division I scholarships as slots were already filled at other schools. Despite the bad press and the hit to his reputation that resulted, Coach Fleck said his decision to start recruiting fresh was for the good of the program because recruits “commit to the coaching staff” (Ambrogi, 2013).

“He built Western Michigan by building it with better players,” said  Sports Illustrated writer Andy Staples (Mattingly, 2017b). By the next year, Coach Fleck had one of the highest-ranked recruiting classes in the MAC conference, and he continued that streak for the next three years.

When he began his tenure at WMU, Coach Fleck was clear that he was creating a culture for the program that emphasized athletes’ growth in four areas: “academically, athletically, socially and spiritually.”

He established a team mantra, which also became the team’s rallying cry: Row the Boat. It came from the tragedy of losing his second son, Colt, to a heart condition just days after he was born in 2011. But it was more than a mantra; it was a mindset.

Coach Fleck explained the phrase, saying, “It’s very simple when you break it down. There are three parts to rowing the boat. There is the oar, which is the energy behind rowing the boat. There is the boat, which is the actual sacrifice, either our team or the administration or the boosters or the audience or whoever is willing to sacrifice for this program. There is also the compass. Every single person that comes in contact with our football program, fans or not, they are all going for one common goal and that is success” (Drew, 2013).

Holding onto that mindset became important after his first season at WMU, when the team went 1–11. Coach Fleck, along with his rallying cry of Row the Boat, which was emblazoned on billboards, T-shirts, and posters in bars and restaurants across Kalamazoo, became an object of ridicule among fans, the media, and rivals, who happily flouted broken oars at away games. But he made it clear to his team that Row the Boat was for times of adversity.

“It’s very easy to row the boat in times of triumph and success in calm seas, but when you’re in the middle of the night, and there are really big storms and there are really big waves, and it’s cold, and it’s dark, and you can’t see, you have to continue to keep your oar in the water. That’s what it’s for. It’s not for the really amazing times. It’s for when you get really tough times and you’re tested,” he said (Nothaft, 2017).

“And at one point, he was the only one who believed in it,” said WMU running back Jarvion Franklin. “His voice never wavered. People were screaming at him and he stayed true to himself and his beliefs” (Markgraff, 2018).

Despite the team’s deplorable record, Coach Fleck’s energy and charisma was enough to help him draw top-level players to WMU, and the coach preached patience.

“When you take over a program, all 125 players have to adapt to your culture,” he said. “I think it takes two or three years when you first get into a program,” he said. “There’s a new personality, and it takes two or three years until everyone begins wearing that personality. Once you start getting into year three and year four, it’s really just incoming freshmen that are adapting” (Markgraff, 2018).

That culture made his players focus on more than athletics. Coach Fleck stressed that he was preparing the players for life after college. He wanted them to have the tools to be successful and overcome adversity in whatever life threw at them.

“Coaching is way different in 2018 than it was in 2008,” he said. “All areas of the student-athletes’ lives are affected by everything they do in college. I have to teach these four areas more than I ever have before” (Markgraff, 2018).

In the team’s meeting room, a large sign detailed how to improve “academically, athletically, socially and spiritually.” Under spirituality, it read, “connect with three new people.”

“Stepping outside your comfort zone in all four areas helps you change the narrative of whatever that narrative is,” said Coach Fleck. “We are here to change that by our actions every day of doing the right things. You should never be a better football player than you are a person” (Greder, 2017).

The winning record was one indication Coach Fleck was achieving what he set out to. Another was that by 2017, the WMU Broncos football team had the highest grade point average in the conference. Another indication was how the players’ own outlooks had changed.

“It’s not just about football or not just about the program, it’s about life,” WMU defensive lineman Keion Adams said. “It’s about never giving up. The boat is sacrifice and the oar is the compass and direction you set for yourself. It’s guided me through my life and made me the person that I am today” (Nichols, 2016).

Coach Fleck’s success at WMU meant bigger football programs would be calling, and within months of the team’s Cotton Bowl experience, it was announced that he would leave WMU to coach football at the University of Minnesota. Once in the Twin Cities, Coach Fleck immediately began to instill the same culture he created at WMU with his new team, building camaraderie, teaching life lessons, and developing a multilevel leadership committee of players. He was insistent that players assume leadership roles and consistently model the desired culture of the team, often repeating, “Bad teams, nobody leads. Average teams, coaches lead. Elite teams, players lead.”

Once again, Coach Fleck knew it would take a couple of years before his culture became ingrained in his players. But with time, consistency, and a focus on cultural values, he produced “mature players who are ready to lead” (Markgraff, 2018).

“We define maturity as, ‘When doing what you have to do becomes doing what you want to do,’” he said. “If our guys don’t know what they have to do because it’s a new program, that takes a couple of years for this maturity to take place. Once the expectations are laid out for them, they know what they ‘have to do.’ Once they want to do it, they also know every reason why they want to do it. That shows a very mature football team. That’s when you start seeing players lead elite football teams” (Markgraff, 2018).

“Everything’s connected,” Coach Fleck told ESPN. “How we live our life is going to be how we play. It sounds like a lot of slogans and all this other stuff. It’s really not. It’s very well connected, it’s very organized, it’s a very detailed culture, there’s a standard, and that standard can’t be compromised in any area of your life” (Rittenberg, 2019).

Questions

1. The focus of path–goal theory is for leaders to enhance follower performance by focusing on follower motivation and the nature of work tasks. Describe how Coach Fleck achieved this through (a) follower motivation and (b) work tasks.

2. Describe Coach Fleck in terms of the four path–goal leader behaviors—directive, supportive, participative, and achievement oriented.

3. Regarding the follower characteristics outlined in the chapter, how did Coach Fleck address followers’ (a) needs for affiliation, (b) preferences for structure, (c) desires for control, and (d) self-perceived level of task ability?

4. Path–goal leadership and expectancy theory are about how leaders can help followers reach their goals. Were the goals the players were working toward their own or Coach Fleck’s?

5. Explain Coach Fleck’s leadership in terms of expectancy theory.

Leadership Instrument

Because the path–goal theory was developed as a complex set of theoretical assumptions to direct researchers in developing new leadership theory, it has used many different instruments to measure the leadership process. The Path–Goal Leadership Questionnaire has been useful in measuring and learning about important aspects of path–goal leadership (Indvik, 1985, 1988) and is still used in contemporary research (Asamani et al., 2016). This questionnaire provides information for respondents on the four leadership behaviors: directive, supportive, participative, and achievement oriented. Respondents’ scores on each of the different styles provide them with information on their strong and weak styles and the relative importance they place on each of the styles.

To understand the path–goal questionnaire better, it may be useful to analyze a hypothetical set of scores. For example, hypothesize that your scores on the questionnaire were 29 for directive, which is high; 22 for supportive, which is moderate; 21 for participative, which is moderate; and 25 for achievement oriented, which is moderate. These scores suggest that you are a leader who is typically more directive than most other leaders, and quite similar to other leaders in the degree to which you are supportive, participative, and achievement oriented.

According to the principles of path–goal theory, if your scores matched these hypothetical scores, you would be effective in situations where the tasks and procedures are unclear and your followers have a need for certainty. You would be less effective in work settings that are structured and unchallenging. In addition, you would be moderately effective in ambiguous situations with followers who want control. Last, you would do fairly well in uncertain situations where you could set high standards, challenge followers to meet these standards, and help them feel confident in their abilities.

In addition to the Path–Goal Leadership Questionnaire, leadership researchers have commonly used multiple instruments to study path–goal theory, including measures of task structure, locus of control, follower expectancies, and follower satisfaction. Although the primary use of these instruments has been for theory building, many of the instruments offer valuable information related to practical leadership issues.

Path–Goal Leadership Questionnaire

Purpose: The purpose of this questionnaire is to identify your path–goal styles of leadership and examine how your use of each style relates to other styles of leadership.

Instructions: This questionnaire contains questions about different styles of path–goal leadership. Indicate how often each statement is true of your own behavior.

Key: 1 = Never 2 = Hardly ever 3 = Seldom 4 = Occasionally 5 = Often 6 = Usually 7 = Always

1.	I let followers know what is expected of them.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
2.	I maintain a friendly working relationship with followers.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
3.	I consult with followers when facing a problem.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
4.	I listen receptively to followers’ ideas and suggestions.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
5.	I inform followers about what needs to be done and how it needs to be done.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
6.	I let followers know that I expect them to perform at their highest level.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
7.	I act without consulting my followers.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8.	I do little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the group.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
9.	I ask followers to follow standard rules and regulations.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
10.	I set goals for followers’ performance that are quite challenging.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
11.	I say things that hurt followers’ personal feelings.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
12.	I ask for suggestions from followers concerning how to carry out assignments.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
13.	I encourage continual improvement in followers’ performance.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
14.	I explain the level of performance that is expected of followers.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
15.	I help followers overcome problems that stop them from carrying out their tasks.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
16.	I show that I have doubts about followers’ ability to meet most objectives.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
17.	I ask followers for suggestions on what assignments should be made.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
18.	I give vague explanations of what is expected of followers on the job.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
19.	I consistently set challenging goals for followers to attain.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
20.	I behave in a manner that is thoughtful of followers’ personal needs.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7

Scoring

1. Reverse the scores for Items 7, 11, 16, and 18.

2. Directive style: Sum of scores on Items 1, 5, 9, 14, and 18.

3. Supportive style: Sum of scores on Items 2, 8, 11, 15, and 20.

4. Participative style: Sum of scores on Items 3, 4, 7, 12, and 17.

5. Achievement-oriented style: Sum of scores on Items 6, 10, 13, 16, and 19.

Scoring Interpretation

For each style, scores 17 and below are considered low, a moderate score is between 18 and 28, and scores 29 and above are considered high.

The scores you received on the Path–Goal Leadership Questionnaire provide information about which styles of leadership you use most often and which you use less often. In addition, you can use these scores to assess your use of each style relative to your use of the other styles.

Sources: Adapted from  A Path-Goal Theory Investigation of Superior-Subordinate Relationships, by J. Indvik, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1985; and from Indvik (1988). Based on the work of House and Dessler (1974) and House (1977) cited in Fulk and Wendler (1982).

Summary

Path–goal theory was developed to explain how leaders motivate followers to be productive and satisfied with their work. It is a contingency approach to leadership because effectiveness depends on the fit between the leader’s behavior and the characteristics of followers and the task.

The basic principles of path–goal theory are derived from expectancy theory, which suggests that followers will be motivated if they feel competent, if they think their efforts will be rewarded, and if they find the payoff for their work valuable. A leader can help followers by selecting a style of leadership (directive, supportive, participative, or achievement oriented) that provides what is missing for followers in a particular work setting. In simple terms, it is the leader’s responsibility to help followers reach their goals by directing, guiding, and coaching them along the way.

Path–goal theory offers a large set of predictions for how a leader’s style interacts with followers’ needs and the nature of the task. Among other things, it predicts that directive leadership is effective with ambiguous tasks, that supportive leadership is effective for repetitive tasks, that participative leadership is effective when tasks are unclear and followers are autonomous, and that achievement-oriented leadership is effective for challenging tasks.

Path–goal theory has three major strengths. First, it provides a theoretical framework that is useful for understanding how various styles of leadership affect the productivity and satisfaction of followers. Second, path–goal theory is unique in that it integrates the motivation principles of expectancy theory into a theory of leadership. Third, it provides a practical model that underscores the important ways in which leaders help followers.

On the negative side, several criticisms can be leveled at path–goal theory. First, the scope of path–goal theory encompasses so many interrelated sets of assumptions that it is hard to use this theory in a given organizational setting. Second, research findings to date do not support a full and consistent picture of the claims of the theory. Third, path–goal theory does not account for gender differences in how leadership is enacted or perceived. Fourth, path–goal theory does not show in a clear way how leader behaviors directly affect follower motivation levels. Also, the theory assumes that leaders have the skills to allow them to switch between various leadership behaviors needed by differing followers, and it assumes that leader behavior is the primary means to motivate followers. Last, path–goal theory is predominantly leader oriented and fails to recognize the interactional nature of leadership. It does not promote follower involvement in the leadership process.