Steve Jobs and Dwight D. Eisenhower - Path-Goal Theory and Situational Leadership Theory - Case Study Example

Leader Comparison (Name (University Affiliation) (Date) Introduction This paper will compare as well as contrast between the path-goal theory and situational leadership theory in terms of how they contribute to one’s understanding of leading. In order to give a comprehensive analysis, the paper will start by introducing the two theories and then give the similarities and differences. Further, the paper will also use a real life example of Steve Jobs and Dwight D. Eisenhower as to indicate the application of the two theories. Path-goal theory Developed by Evans (1970, cited in Komives et al., 2010) and a year later modified by House (1971, cited in Komives et al., 2010), Path-goal theory was developed to determine a leader’s most adept style as a motivation to encourage the staff to attain the set goals. Most notably, this argument buttresses the notion, that motivation plays a fundamental role in the manner in which the leader and a follower interact, and how the interaction impacts the overall success of the followers in the organization. According to House (1971, cited in Komives et al., 2010), the path-goal theory is a reflection of two fundamental propositions. To begin with, the key strategic function of a leader is associated with his or her ability to enhance the mental state of his or her follower. In other words, one strategic pivotal role of the manager or superior is related to his or her ability to boost the psychological state of his or her subordinate. According to Mitchel (1974, cited in Polston-Murdoch, 2013) the leader needs to be acquainted with the necessary steps linked to the clarification of paths, goals as well as intensify the subordinates satisfaction through coming up with extrinsic rewards. This would in turn translate to increased employees’ intrinsic motivation. The second key proposition is that a specific situational leader's behavior will often achieve the motivation role. As House (1971, cited in Komives et al., 2010) argues, the path-goal theory identifies four leadership characteristics or behaviors to augment the employees’ motivation. Accordingly, House and Mitchell (1974, cited in Komives et al., 2010) established the four leadership behaviors on three distinct attitudes depicted by employees. The first attitude is associated with the employees’ anticipations of effective performance. The second attitude is related to the employees’ satisfaction and the third attitude is linked to the employees’ expectations of their superiors, managers and immediate bosses (Negron, 2008). According to House and Mitchell (1974, cited in Polston-Murdoch, 2013) and Indvik (1987, cited in Polston-Murdoch, 2013) the four path-goal leadership behaviors that are intended to reward the employees or provide the structure include supportive, directive, participative as well as achievement oriented. To start with, the directive leader is known to give clarified information hence providing a specific guidance that the subordinate will use to undertake the desired expectations, which are based on the organizational rules as well as performance standards. In essence, as Negron (2008) states, the directive style of leadership is often effective with inexperienced or newly hired employees as well as in situations that need immediate action. According to Negron (2008), the directive style has been associated with aggressiveness, descriptiveness, whereby the leader is seen to control the subordinate as he or she dictates what is to be done. As research indicates, this style is related to employees’ expectations as well as satisfaction for workers who are hired to engage in unstructured and ambiguous tasks. Thus, the directive style is negatively perceived by employees who participate in well-structured tasks as they believe that such a style is dictating in nature. On the other hand, the supportive style involves a leader who conducts him/herself in a responsive manner hence developing a friendly climate as well as recognizing the workers’ accomplishment in a rewarding modus (House and Mitchell 1974, cited in Polston-Murdoch, 2013). In effect, the supportive leaders have been found to demonstrate some level of respect for the juniors or followers as they treat every employee equally and are often concerned about the workers’ wellbeing. The supportive style has been found to be suitable when the workers are somewhat not confident in what they do hence have little or no motivation at all (Negron, 2008). The participative style in is associated with leaders who often exhibit consultative characters such as soliciting workers with respect to suggestions before arriving at the final decision. However, they have the liberty to retain final decision authority (Negron, 2008). Accordingly, the participative leader will always share responsibilities with his/her workers through engaging them in the planning process, decision-making as well as the execution stages (Negron 2008). The achievement-oriented leader, on the other hand, comes up with challenging objectives and expects the workers to perform to their level best hence aiming for the highest level. Here, the leader will often seek improvement in the employee’s performance as well as indicate a high degree of confidence that the employees working under him/her will take on their responsibilities (House and Mitchell 1974, cited in Polston-Murdoch, 2013). According to Negron (2008), the achievement-oriented style often suits workers, who are engaged in unclear tasks as well as those who may need morale booster to enhance their confidence in relation to the ability to attain a particular goal. As House and Mitchell (1974, cited in Polston-Murdoch, 2013) notes, each of the above-delineated four path-goal styles can be practiced by managers, superiors or leaders in any combination with different employees as well as within various organizational conditions. Situational leadership theory The situational leadership theory posits that there is often no single leadership approach that can suit all the situations. Hence, a distinct leadership style will be employed according to the current situation (Grint, 2011). This theory argues that effective leadership needs a lucid or rational understanding regarding the situation at hand hence apply the suitable response. The situational type of leadership theory originated from a people-oriented against tasks-oriented continuum (Conger, 2010: Lorsch, 2010). The continuum epitomized the scope within which the leader focuses on his or her relationship with the employees or juniors. The situational leadership theory stresses the need to relate the leader’s style of governing to the followers’ level of maturity. According to Becker et al. (2002), the leader often determines the leadership style to be employed. In other words, in the situational leadership style, the follower’s or subordinate's behavior should define the leadership behavior that would be employed in the given situation. Depending on the situation at hand, different levels of “management”, as well as “leadership”, are often necessary when handling a given situation. However, the situational leadership model argues that leaders must begin by identifying the most significant priorities of tasks. Secondly, the leader must assess the readiness or motivation level of his subordinates through evaluating the group’s willingness as well as abilities. Hence, depending on the degree of willingness and the ability, the managers must employ the most suitable style of leadership to fit a particular scenario. Similarities between path-goal and situational leadership style theories. To begin with, both the path-goal and situational leadership theories recognize the directing leadership styles. In essence, the two theories comprehensively define the directing style of leadership and posit that this method of leadership involves the leader guiding his or her followers by telling them what is expected of them with regards to the tasks they are supposed to take on. The two theories posit that a directive or directing style of leadership is often appropriate in situations the subordinate are engaged in unstructured, ambiguous tasks (Dixon & Hart, 2010). Besides, the two theories also posit that the directing style of leadership is often appropriate in situations whereby the subordinates have just been hired hence inexperienced. Besides, as Dixon and Hart (2010) posit, this leadership approach is often suitable in situations whereby the subordinates have a low ability as well as are unwilling to take on a given task. In other words, when the employees are unwilling or not in a position to do the job, the manager or supervisor must be ready take on a directive approach whereby he or she dictates on what should be done. The two theories assert that in the directive style of leadership, the leaders need to define roles as well as the tasks of the subordinates hence supervising them (closelyPohl & Paillé, 2011). The other similarity between situational and path-goal leadership theory is that they both recognize as well delineate the supportive style of leadership. They assert that supportive leadership style is usually suitable in a working environment whereby the employees have somewhat low willingness but high ability with regards to the task at hand. In other words, these theories suggest that the supportive leadership style can be beneficial when the subordinate is showing lack of commitment or is refusing to do the job but has the capability and expertise needed to complete the job. According to Conger (2010) and Polston-Murdoch, (2013) the supportive leadership style requires the leader to be concerned about motivating the workers rather than worrying about showing them what is expected of them in light of the tasks ahead. Equally, the two theories also suggest that the key to the supportive style of leadership is for the leaders to get out of their way and motivate as well as build the confidence of their followers. Therefore, clarification regarding the tasks does not matter, the subordinate is already cognizant of what he or she should do, and what is lacking is motivation to act. As Conger (2010) and Polston-Murdoch (2013) note, supportive leadership incorporates listening to the followers, encouraging and praising them thus making them feel proud whenever they show efforts in success. The third similarity in situational and Path-goal leadership theory is that they both entail the delegating approach leadership style. Even though the path-goal theory uses the term achievement-oriented style of leadership to mean delegating leadership, they both mean the same concept. Accordingly, both the theories assert that the delegating style applies when the leader has a considerable amount of faith in the abilities of his or her followers with regard to succeeding. Similarly, as Conger (2010) and Polston-Murdoch (2013) articulate, the delegating leadership model is often appropriate in a situation whereby the subordinates have high levels of willingness as well as capability. The two theories posit that leaders should adopt this approach when the subordinates are in a position to do the job at hand while at the same time motivated to do it. The theories also posit that under this model, the level of trust is high hence the subordinates will do the job effectively as required of his or her hence little or no supervision is needed. Nevertheless, delegating often involves the participation of the leaders as he or she will be needed in the problem-solving and decision-making processes. However, the execution is typically in the hands of the subordinates. According to the two theories, the delegating approach gives the follower much control hence charged with reporting and relaying the feedback to the leader. Ultimately, as Conger (2010) and Polston-Murdoch (2013) posits, the subordinates at this level do not need regular praises, however, like any worker appreciation and recognition will be expected from the leaders. The contrast between path-goal and situational leadership style theories One significant difference evident between the two models is that the path-goal theory emphasizes on the need for the leaders to motivate the subordinate in order for them to accomplish the designated tasks. Conversely, situational leadership theory does not define a particular concept to be followed for the subordinates attain the tasks designated, but suggest that the follower is obligated to adapt to the development level of the subordinates. In other words, the path-goal theory focuses on the leaders’ ability to enhance the subordinate’s performance as well as his or her satisfaction by concentrating on the subordinate’s motivation. For instance, the leader might be forced to employ an extrinsic rewarding system if he or she believes that it would yield results as far as worker’s performance level is concerned. In contrast, the situational theory holds that not a single leadership style can suit all situations. Therefore, the leader should begin by assessing the follower’s behavior and thereby formulate the best leadership style that will be appropriate for that given situation. Besides, the path-goal theory accentuates on the relationship between manager’s or superior’s leadership style and the subordinates’ characteristics within the organizational setting. Thereby the primary focus of the leader is to concentrate on the leadership style that will appropriately fit the subordinate’s motivational needs. Conversely, the situational leadership theory lays more emphasis on the characteristics within a continuum between task-orientation and relation-orientation. Furthermore, as Bass (2008) notes, the situational leadership theory focuses on the degree of maturity or rather the readiness of the subordinates as a context that supervisors need to account in order to determine the appropriate fit between the leader and the subordinate. The other evident difference between path-goal and Situational leadership theories is that the situational theory incorporates the coaching leadership style while the path-goal theory incorporates the participative style of leadership. In essence, the situational leadership theory posits that when the subordinates have high willingness but low ability to perform a task, coaching will be highly required as roles and tasks must be defined clearly. However, in such situations, the leader will still have to seek ideas as well as suggestions from the followers. On the other hand, the path-goal identifies the participative style of leadership a situation whereby the leader calls upon the leaders in order for them to share their ideas hence participating in the decision-making process. Steve Jobs, a path-goal-oriented leader Born in 1955, in a humble neighborhood in San Francisco, Steve Jobs is widely known as the founder of the Apple Company, one of the most successful electronic companies in the world (Moritz, 2014). His biological parents, Abdulfattah Jandali and Joanne Simpson, who were unwedded college graduates, gave Steve Jobs for adoption to a somewhat humble couple, Clara and Paul Jobs who lived in the south of the Bay Area (Young & Simon, 2006). It was not until Steve Jobs was twenty-seven years that he managed to uncover information associated with his biological parents. When growing up, Jobs and his foster father handled electronics in their family garage, and it is during these occasions that his father was able to teach him how to reconstruct electronics. With a daily routine that involved handling the electronics, Jobs found a hobby in electronics hence becoming a mechanical prowess. During his elementary education, Jobs' teachers learned that he was intelligent as well as innovative even making the school administration to think of skipping him to high school though his parents declined. It is while in high school that Job met Steve Wozniak, another electronic genius who was later to be his future partner. After high school, he joined Reed College based in Portland but dropped out barely six months later as he disliked formal education. On dropping out, Jobs spent eighteen months in creative classes. Later in 1974, Jobs landed a job in a video games company known as Atari as a designer. Within a few months, Jobs was on his way to India in search of spiritual enlightenment. By 1976, Jobs and his friend and partner Wozniak started up a company known as Apple in Jobs’ family garage. They managed to secure capital by selling a scientific calculator and a Volkswagen bus. Jobs and his partner are known for revolutionizing the world of computer through making the machines smaller, intuitive, cheaper as well as accessible to the daily customers. At its initial stages, Apple computers were marketed each for $666 hence giving the company nearly $774,000. Three years later, the company came up with a second model known as Apple II, which in turn burgeoned the company’s sales by 700% which translates to $139 million (Young & Simon, 2006). Since then there have been a series of success including the invention of the first smartphone called iPhone and music player known iPod. The key factor that contributed to Apple’s success is Steve Jobs' path-goal leadership style, which incorporated motivating the employees. Jobs understood this leadership concept and knew what worked and which one did not. Before he died of pancreatic cancer in 2011, Jobs had often emphasized the significance of teamwork in the company and often listened to his subordinates. According to him, participative leadership was critical in motivating the employees to exert more efforts in their work as they felt as part and parcel of the computer company; they felt valued. Moreover, his followers valued him significantly and often wanted to listen to him in order to know the secrets of his success, hence being a role model to employees in Apple. The respect was earned from his commitment to participate in the solving of problems hence making the employees to envy him and work towards attaining their set-goals. A leader that does not respect his followers will not be respected in turn; this indicates, that Jobs respect came from the fact that he is a participative and supportive leader who did not mind helping his employees despite the difference in the level of seniority (Young & Simon, 2006). Moreover, because of the respect, his staff had for him, they were motivated to work harder as they felt as if their efforts and goals were supported and appreciated. According to Young and Simon (2006), the employees at Apple Company were always allowed to come up with their innovations and creativity after which a forum would be held for the new innovations to be presented and discussed. This reflects Job’s participative and supportive style of leadership as he was committed to seeing that his subordinates realized their potential and as such supported them in every way he could. Dwight D. Eisenhower, a situational leader Born in 1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was a former General and later America’s 34th President, has been considered as one of the greatest situational leaders (Masciulli et al., 2009). Before becoming a politician and eventual a president, Dwight served during the World War II at the rank of 5-str general in the U.S military (Masciulli et al., 2009). he also served in the Europe Allied Forces as the Supreme Commander. According to Masciulli et al. (2009), Dwight coordinated as well as foresaw the invasion that was witnessed in North Africa between 1942 and 1943. He is also known for his successful planning and execution of strategies that led to the invasion of France and Germany between 1944 and 1945 (Masciulli et al., 2009). With his successive military operations, Dwight managed to be appointed as the first Supreme Commander of NATO. Despite being in the disciplined forces, Dwight believed that leadership did not come from ordering subordinates around. This fits well with the situational leadership theory which holds that no single leadership style can be applied in all situations. Accordingly, just because one may think that the army operates by commands, a leader should not just rely on ordering his or her followers around, but should cultivate a leadership style that suits the current situation. As Masciulli et al. (2009) notes, Dwight was once quoted saying that leadership does not involve forcing your ideas on people, but a leader should hold proper conversations with his or her followers upholding a high level of respect towards them. He also asserts that a leader should listen to both sides and let the followers participate in the decision-making process. Dwight’s school of thought closely relates with the situational leadership style which also promotes participation. With his experience in World War II and as a politician, Dwight realized that coalition or teamwork in the work environment is very vital. He points out that a leader should work with his or her subordinates to build the business if he or she wants the organization to success. Ultimately, this viewpoint sits well with situational leadership theory, which holds that participation and support are crucial in any working environment. Conclusion This paper has successfully compared as well as contrasted between the path-goal theory and situational leadership theory in terms of how they contribute to one’s understanding of leading. Further, the paper efficaciously used real life examples of Steve Jobs and Dwight D. Eisenhower to explicate the application of the two theories. References Bass, B.M. (2008). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. London: The Free Press. Becker, J., Ayman, R., & Korabik, K. (2002). Discrepancies in self/subordinates perceptions of leadership behavior: Leader’s gender, organizational context and leader’s self monitoring. Group and Organizational Management, 27(2), 226-245. Dixon, M. L., & Hart, L. K. (2010). The impact of path-goal leadership styles on work group effectiveness and turnover intention. Journal of managerial issues, Vol. XXII(1), 52-69. Grint, K. (2011). A history of leadership. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership (pp. 3-14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Komives, S. R., & Dugan, J. P. (2010). Contemporary leadership theories. Political and civic leadership: A reference handbook, 1, 111-120. Masciulli, J., Molchanov, M. A., & Knight, W. A. (2009). Political leadership in context. The Ashgate Research Companion to Political Leadership. Aldershot: Ashgate, 3-27. Moritz, M. (2014). Return to the Little Kingdom: Steve Jobs and the Creation of Apple. Overlook Press. Negron, D. (2008). A case study examining the relationship of the path-goal theory leadership styles toprofits in El Paso, Texas, Rent-A-Center stores. (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3331408). Capella University. Pohl, S., & Paillé, P. (2011). The impact of perceived organizational commitment and leader commitment on organizational citizenship behaviour. International Journal Of Organization Theory & Behavior (Pracademics Press), 14(2), 145-161. Polston-Murdoch, L. (2013). An Investigation of path-goal theory, relationship of leadership style, supervisor-related commitment, and gender. Emerging leadership journeys. Virginia: School of Business & Leadership, 13-44. Young, J. S., & Simon, W. L. (2006). iCon Steve Jobs. John Wiley & Sons. Read More