Path-goal Leadership Theory - Assignment Example

Name Course Instructor Date Path-goal Leadership Theory Introduction A number of leadership theories exist to provide insights on the different qualities and attributes that leaders do posses. One of the theories that fall in the category of contingency theories of leadership is path-goal leadership theory developed by Robert House. The paper therefore deliberates on the different situations where leaders make attempts or apply path-goal leadership theory. Question 1 The theory defines the major role of a leader as defining the goals and laying down a path for the followers or the subordinates to facilitate completion of goal set. According House (1971), manager job is viewed as guiding workers by selecting the best paths for the entity and subordinates to reach their set goals as well as organizational goals. Hence, leaders need to engage in different or exhibit different behaviors depending on the situation at hand and the demand of the situation. Role of leaders is to assist followers to attain their aims and goal through provision of a sense of direction and support for them to be compatible with the organizations goals (Gupta, 2009). Therefore, followers accept behavior of a leader if they perceive or view it as acceptable and this become their source of satisfaction and motivation (House 1971). The level of satisfaction leads to improved performance. The leader coach, facilitate and rewards good performance. Therefore, the major focus that the theory stresses is that if subordinates are satisfied with leadership style that meets their needs and expectations then they will be more likely to be motivated towards the goals of leadership. However, if role and structure of tasks of subordinates is ambiguous, they are likely to feel stressed and dissatisfied hence, will disapprove the leader’s style. This means that leaders need to motivate subordinates and show them a sense of direction to avoid ambiguities in an organization. Leaders engage in those behaviors that complement the abilities and the deficiencies of the subordinates. Proponent of the theory House believed that leaders are flexible and therefore have the capacity to demonstrate all the four styles including, directive, achievement oriented, participative and supportive leadership styles (House 1971). The reason why he believed this way is that a leader takes the control of the organization to provide a sense of direction. At the same time a leaders is supposed to set challenging goals and expect subordinates to perform higher to attain the same (Wofford & Liska 1993). In some instances, a leader is also required to consult and engage with the followers. He must ask for suggestions from the members before making decisions to achieve positive results. Furthermore, he also needs to support subordinates by showing psychological concerns to sub-ordinates. Some of the subordinates go through stressful experiences and they need psychological support for them to gain energy and hope to commit themselves to the organization. Therefore concisely, House envisioned a situation whereby a leader needs to be an all round person because of the diverse challenges and situations or circumstances that do occur in the organization. The fluidity of a leader will enable him deal with challenges and different situations hence, motivate subordinates for them to contribute to increased level of performance and productivity (Wofford & Liska 1993). Question 2 Path-goal theory proposes or has two contingency variables that help in the moderation of leadership behavior (House 1971). These two variables include follower characteristics and environment (Hayyat Malik 2012). These two variables are essential in moderating the behaviors of the leader and therefore affect the outcomes of the relationships between the leader and the followers (Evans 1996). Environmental factors are outside or beyond the control of the subordinates or the followers. This means that, the subordinates cannot influence or affect the structures as they are. These environmental factors include authority, task structure and work group (Indvik 1986). One of the characteristics of environment is the task structure, the extent the requirements and nature of tasks are specified. Some of the tasks are repetitive, simple or ambiguous hence may not be in the capacity of the flower to change them. Role ambiguity is lack of clarity on what is expected of an individual or on evaluation criteria (Schriesheim & Von Glinow 1977). The followers have no control of such roles even if they contributed to their de-motivation and job dissatisfaction. The leader may therefore, required to provide directives and assurance that all issues will be in order to motivate subordinates and ensure that they remain commitment. Therefore, environmental factors determine the kind of leaders behavior expected in case there is quest to maximize the follower outcomes. The other factor is the follower characteristics that include perceived ability, need for autonomy, experience and locus of control. The characteristics of subordinates help to determine how the environment and the leader are interpreted. Need of autonomy is the desire of the subordinates to be independent and be in self-control (Hayyat Malik 2012). Followers will perceive a leader as good if that leader gives them an opportunity to lead independence life. Need for achievement is only another important personal characteristic that determines how subordinates perceive their leader. Need for achievement is the instinct of striving for and attaining a certain level of excellence the subordinate wants or aspires to achieve. If a leader is perceived to provide an opportunity for achievement then the perception is positive. Locus of control is yet another characteristic, which is the belief of subordinates that they are master of their own fates or believe that whatever happens to them in life is because of chance, luck or outside people events. While perceived availability is the extent of the subordinates ability to undertake/perform tasks and attain goals (House 1971). If followers perceive that they have the capability to execute certain responsibilities, they are more likely to influence behaviors of leaders. Therefore, these two variables are very important in an organization. The leaders behaviors will change through the actions and the support they provide in respect to the situation at hand. If the environment such as task structure has issues, leaders should be able to adopt suitable strategies to provide leadership. On the other hand, the personal characteristics of the followers is also important as it affects leaders behaviors (Dessler & Valenzi 1977) Question 3 In real situations, path-goal leadership theory manifests through the actions and the behaviors of both the leaders and the followers. Path-goal theory principles focus on the leadership styles such as coaching, directing, participating and delegating. Other important principles include task structure and subordinate preference. In this case, the reasons why Bob and Ken appear to be less effective compared to Cynthia are supported by path-goal theory. The reason why Ken is less effective compared to Cynthia is that he is boring and he seems not to provide psychological support to subordinates. Furthermore, the work structure does not allow independent thinking and decision making as spelled out. This contributes to the level of boredom among subordinates who feel that their leader Ken is ineffective. Furthermore, the work is very straightforward, monotonous and repetitive adding to employees’ level of boredom. Ken do not set challenging goals for his followers and this as well contribute to their level of dissatisfaction hence, perceiving Ken leadership as in effective. Ken as well appears to be less effective in his leadership compared to Cynthia because of the numerous challenges in his unit. Some of the issues include numerous complain from employees concerning difficulties of their job. Employees work under pressure as they find out amicable ways of doing their tasks. This leadership problem shows that Ken is not supportive to employees. He seems not to get involved with subordinates and this makes it difficult to work and to motivate them (Vecchio, Justin & Pearce 2008). The increased level of absenteeism and turnover in this second shift is attested to lack of appropriate leadership. Therefore, Ken is expected to change his leadership behaviors and become a supportive leader. He should satisfy the needs of subordinates. He also needs to direct subordinates by letting them know his expectations. This can be achieved through participating and providing suggestions on how employees can be able to meet their standards. They also must be able to have meetings and sessions where they can share with the subordinates. Cynthia has been able to succeed in her leadership role in the third shift because; she is supportive as she convenes meetings to find out problems or areas with glitches and provides amicable solution. Cynthia as well takes time and spends time with every worker that enables them to feel motivated. Cynthia furthermore, stresses the company goals and provides rewards for those that excel. She is therefore involved with the subordinates. She directs them, supports them, and participates in her leadership role by getting views and suggestions from subordinates. Therefore, employees or the subordinates perceive Cynthia as a leader that have visions and is taking them somewhere. She has goals and works closely with the subordinates. Therefore, the subordinates are always motivated and satisfied to be led by Cynthia as opposed by Ken and Bob who seems not to be concerned about the psychological concerns of employees. Bob and Ken face numerous challenges in their units and it is a clear indication of lack of manifestation of attributes as captured in the path-goal theory. Followers lack the path to follow to realize their personal goals and organization goals hence, are de-motivated as manifest through complaints, absenteeism and high turnovers in their shifts. Question 4 All these three leaders, Bob, Ken and Cynthia have their own styles of leadership but they affect the motivation of their respective subordinates in different ways. The leadership of Ken to begin with does not indicate or try to create close relationship with subordinate. Ken is concerned about work being done without considering the psychological aspect of workers. Employees under his unit are not motivated because Ken is more boring and subordinates think that it is as if he does not understand their situations. The workers work in an environment that is not providing them independence to make their own decisions. There is no challenges as the routines are repetitive, monotonous and straightforward. As a leader, he failed to engage subordinate and allow them to provide suggestions on the way forward (Jermier, 1996). This therefore leaves subordinates in a state of frustration as they feel they do not have someone to provide them with a sense of direction and someone to give them support they dearly need. Leadership of Bob on the other hand as well does not motivate employees. Increased rate of turnover and absenteeism indicates that these subordinates are not satisfied and motivated to work in the unit. Furthermore, increased number of complaints to Bob as the immediate supervisor and the top management about their working conditions is a clear indication of subordinates that are not happy with what they are doing. Bob has failed in providing an amicable solution to the problems and challenges of the subordinates. He does not have meetings with the subordinates to enable them share their grievances and the appropriate ways they can adopt to solve the stalemates. Most of the subordinates work in a unit that is so involving and complex. They as well get reprimands from other colleagues if the systems and softwares do not perform well. This is something that is contributing to their de motivation and requires immediate address. Subordinates as well are not given a sense of direction and their efforts are not recognized and appreciated. Hardworking subordinates may feel unsatisfied if the supervisor fails to recognize and appreciate. The third leader, Cynthia has managed to motivate her subordinates. Cynthia approach to leadership is different and this has enabled the workers to be motivated. She has employed different strategies. She keeps close to every employee and takes part in executing his or her work. She also ensures that employees achieve their personal goals as well as organizational goals by setting clear goals (House 1971). She also talks with the subordinates and solves their issues within a short period. This makes employees to have a sense of belonging. Furthermore, she also provides recognition and rewards to those employees that achieve their goals. This has enabled them to be motivated and to remain committed to their work. They perceive Cynthia as a leader that is reliable, who give direction, achievement oriented, supportive and participative. Question 4 If I were given an opportunity to be a consultant with Seraphic about leadership, I would have recommended a number of changes and recommendations in respect to Ken, Bob and Cynthia supervision. These three leaders have areas of strength as well as areas of weakness that they need to place emphasis on to motivate and ensure that employees are satisfied (House 1971). One of the changes I would make in connection to Ken is to become supportive in his leadership. Other recommendation is for Ken to allow his subordinates to make independent decisions. They should as well given tasks that are not repetitive and monotonous. This de-motivates them and makes their work unsatisfied. Supervisor Ken should also give his subordinates a sense of direction so that they understand their personal and organizational goals (Landrum & Daily 2012). This will enable subordinates to have self-awareness. When it comes to Bob, I would suggest that he should spent his time with the subordinates because of the nature of their work. The work is very stressful and employees as well get heat from others. These subordinates feel they are on their own and nobody is concerned about their fate. They opt to abscond wok and to look for other jobs. I would therefore recommend that Bob make some changes in how he provides his leadership. One of the recommendations is to define the objectives and goals of his department (Landrum & Daily 2012). Subordinates should understand the aim and goals they are pursuing. This implies that he needs to come up with a shared vision that will enable the workers to know what they are up to. Bob is also required to invest his time with employees. He must provide enough psychological support to his employees for them to manage the pressure that they work with (House 1971). Bob as well is required to have sessions with the subordinates where they are given an opportunity to air out their grievances to ensure that an amicable common ground solution are achieved. It is also important for Bob to use other avenues to motivate subordinates such as agitating for pay increases. For the employees and other rewards that comes with excellence. Making these changes will be of value to Bob and the subordinates. The subordinate will gain confident in the leadership and will be able to have conducive working environment that will improve their level of satisfaction (House 1971). Cynthia is a leader whose subordinates are proud of because of her leadership styles. In capacity as a consult for Seraphic, I would recommend that Cynthia continue to enhance her relationship with employees and use multiple avenues and strategies to motivate them. She can as well use strategies such as holidays to motivate the workers to ensure that they remain satisfied with their workers. She also needs to focus on those that lag behind and ensure that they make improvements through rewards for their contribution. Conclusion Path-goal leadership theory is one of the contingency theories that require leaders to provide guidelines and goals for their subordinates. Leaders behaviors affect the operations of an entity and determine the way followers perceive them. Therefore, leaders have a role to act with modest to motivate employees and satisfy them. Two variables including follower characteristic and environment are important aspects in path-goal leadership theory as they affect leader behaviors. The case study incorporated has as well indicated the need for leaders to upheld to various principles such being supportive, participative provide a sense of direction and focus on achieving goals. Bob, Ken and Cynthia have exemplified different leadership skills based on how their followers perceive them and on the situations they work from. Reference list Dessler, G, & Valenzi, E 1977, ‘Initiation of Structure and Subordinate Satisfaction: A Path Analysis Test of Path-Goal Theory.’ Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 20 no. 2, pp. 251-259 Evans, M 1996, ‘R.J. House's `a path-goal theory of leader effectiveness.' Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7 no. 3, pp. 305. Hayyat Malik, S 2012, ‘A Study of Relationship between Leader Behaviors and Subordinate Job Expectancies: A Path-Goal Approach.’ Pakistan Journal of Commerce & Social Sciences, Vol. 6 no. 2, pp. 357-371. House, R 1971, ‘A Path Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness.’ Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16 no. 3, pp. 321-339. Gupta, A 2009, ‘Path-Goal leadership.’ Retrieved from; http://www.practical- management.com/Leadership-Development/Path-Goal-Leadership.html Jermier, J 1996, ‘The path-goal theory of leadership: A subtextual analysis. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7 no. 3, p. 311. Indvik, J 1986, ‘Path-Goal Theory of Leadership: A Meta-Analysis., Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, pp. 189-192. Landrum, N, & Daily, C 2012, ‘ Corporate Accountability: A Path-Goal Perspective.’ International Journal of Business Insights & Transformation, Vol. 4, pp. 50-62. Schriesheim, C, & Von Glinow, M 1977, ‘The Path-Goal Theory of Leadership: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis.’ Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 20 no. 3, pp. 398-405 Vecchio, R, Justin, J, & Pearce, C 2008, ‘The utility of transactional and transformational leadership for predicting performance and satisfaction within a path-goal theory framework.’ Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 81 no. 1, pp. 71- 82. Wofford, J & Liska, L 1993, ‘Path-Goal Theories of Leadership: A Meta-Analysis.’ Journal of Management, Vol. 19 no. 4, p. 587. Read More