Path-Goal Theory - Essay Example

PATH-GOAL THEORY of the School] of the In the following paper I am going to review and analyze two articles about path-goal leadership theory. The first article is called "Path-goal leadership theory: the long and winding road" by Chester A. Schriesheim and Linda L. Neider. The second article is written by Jim Bolt and titled "Developing The 3-Dimensional Leader". Both articles relate to the modern theory of path-goal leadership, developed jointly by Martin Evans and Robert House and emphasizing that a leader has the function of clearing the path toward the goal(s) of the group, by meeting the needs of subordinates. The articles are different in the way that Chester A. Schriesheim and Linda L. Neider provide more research and literature review on the theory while Jim Bolt discusses the modern leader and importance of changing the dimension of a modern manager's role in the company. Schriesheim and Neider begin their article by mentioning the developers' definition of a leader and the functions that are supposed to be held by a modern manager of an organization. They stress that, the function of a leader is to increase "personal pay-offs to subordinates for work-goal attainment and make the path to these pay-offs easier to travel by clarifying it, reducing road blocks and pitfalls, and increasing the opportunities for personal satisfaction en route" (House, 1971, p. 324). Effective leaders assist employees in their career path that is aimed at individual fulfillment of employees and organizational benefit. Most of the investigations of House's path-goal theory have concentrated on exploring relationships between leadership behaviors (e.g., consideration and initiating structure) and outcome measures (e.g., satisfaction) while studying the impact of different moderator variables (such as task structure). House (1971), for example, found preliminary support for the contention that situational variables may moderate the relationship of perceived initiating structure as well as consideration and such effectiveness measures as subordinate job satisfaction. The authors of the article cite Bass (1990) noting that the leader "needs to complement only what is missing in a situation to enhance the subordinate's motivation, satisfaction, and performance" (p. 627). Mentioning about over 100 studies published on the theory of path-goal leadership, Schriesheim and Neider continue the article by outlining the findings of few studies. The results of a meta-analysis of over 40 studies, Resulted in a support for the basic propositions of the theory, particularly with respect to the role of initiating structure, moderated by taskcharacteristics, on employee satisfaction. The results with respect to performance as an outcome variable and with respect to leader consideration behaviors appear to be far less consistent, and this may account for the removal of subordinate performance from the most recent statement of the theory. Another study provided by Szilagyi and Sims (1974) found that "while task characteristics moderated the relationship between initiating structure and employee satisfaction, the same was not true with respect to the relationship between initiating structure and performance". Further, Schriesheim and Schriesheim (1980) found that perceived consideration appears to be strongly related to employee satisfaction levels regardless of situational characteristics. Specifically, supportive leadership explained 63% of the variance in supervisory satisfaction scores, even after instrumental leader behaviors were paialled out. This finding is also consistent with the meta-analyses conducted by Fisher and Edwards (1988) and Wofford and Liska (1993), both finding support for a positive relationship between leader consideration and subordinate job satisfaction. Both of these meta-analyses also, however, provided only mixed results regarding the theory's proposed moderator relationships. In contrast to Schriesheim and Neider, Bolt does not refer to any studies in his article but discusses the contemporary leaders and possibilities for the improvement of their managerial capabilities. The author stresses that today's complex business challenges require new development of leaders and expression of their personal abilities that can be framed in the three-dimensional leader. Too many leaders today are one-dimensional personalities who have well-developed managerial skills but lack people skills and knowledge of business in which they operate and manage. Currently the priority of all organization is to find broad personalities able to identify and address critical business challenges, lead the organization confidently in the future and to achieve excellence and balance in private and business life. These capabilities are framed in the dimensions of business, leadership and personality. Only through the development of all three qualities can a leader fit in the modern organizational challenges. The author of the article believes that the crisis of a modern leader is due to two major factors. First, the leaders today are trained and educated by old methods and theories that simply does not match the fast-paced business world. "Potential leaders receive essentially the same education as did their predecessors -- education that was appropriate to the demands of a different era. The primary focus in too many universities and corporations is still on how business skills will produce leaders who have strong functional, technical and financial capabilities. When leadership development is provided, it is often treated in separate programs as if it were an isolated issue apart from the business challenges leaders face. And issues dealing with personal effectiveness are still frequently seen as too "touchy feely" and not dealt with at all." The second reason that the leader crisis is due today is because on-the-job experiences and development oftentimes fail to produce the leadership of an organizational need, meaning that most leaders who learn on the job are narrow minded personalities unable to manage people on an international level or manage specific business situations, not previewed by traditional theories of leadership. It is worth saying that Jim Bolt in his article does not speak about a path-goal theory as such. He mentions about it in between the lines when talking about three-dimensional approach to leadership. He stresses that in order to foster leadership skills, modern managers need to get rid of traditional and authoritarian methods of management, demonstrated by their need to over-manage to be seen as the "expert," to solve all problems, make all decisions, and maintain control. Capable of managing but unfit to lead is a fitting description of these executives. Development of three-dimensional leadership requires concentration on such things as "creating new organizations, building market-focused and customer-focused organizations, leading change, winning in the global marketplace, creating a learning organization, fostering innovation, and leveraging technology". Leadership is the combination of both competence and character and business will reward personalities who are rather non-workaholics. The conclusion of Schriesheim and Neider's article is a short commentary on Miner's assertion that, "path-goal theory . . . has a compelling logic to it that other theories have not achieved' and that "one cannot help but conclud[e] that in this respect path-goal theory is on the right track.. ." However, we are also gravely concerned about the future of the theory if active theorization and empirical research is not forthcoming to move path-goal theory from its current arrested state to a newer and more vibrant one. Authors stress that aligning a path-goal theory into the stream of work on charismatic leadership might be useful, particularly since path-goal tenets have already been used by House (1977) in developing theory on charisma. Bibliography: 1. Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership,3rd.ed. New York: Free Press. 2. Chester A. Schriesheim and Linda L. Neider. "Path-goal leadership theory: the long and winding road". 3. House, R.J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16,321-338. 4. Jim Bolt. "Developing The 3-Dimensional Leader". 5. Szilagyi, A.D., & Sims, H.P. (1974). An exploration of the path-goal theory of leadership in a health care environment. Academy of Management Journal, 17,622-634. 6. Wofford, J.C., & Liska, L. Z. (1993). Path-goal theories of leadership: a meta analysis. Journal of Management, 19,857-876. Read More