House’s path-goal theory
Applying the expectancy model of motivation, Robert House (1974) proposed a path-goal theory of leadership that proposed leadership behaviors are acceptable when followers perceive that the leader is a source of satisfaction or is laying a path to satisfaction [See Image 5: House and Mitchell’s Path-Goal Theory of Leadership]. To House, motivation depends on self-efficacy and desire, meaning that the individual believes they can accomplish the goal and wants to do so. Leadership behavior motivates performance when it reduces roadblocks to reaching goals, provides the support that followers need to achieve goals, and provides meaningful rewards for accomplishing goals.
House’s (1996) path-goal theory offers two classes of situational variables: environmental factors and follower contingency factors. Environmental factors are outside of a follower’s control, including variables like the task structure, the formal authority system, and workgroup dynamics. The follower contingency factors are the variables that are part of the follower’s personality, including locus of control, ability to accomplish the task, the need to achieve, experience, and clarity. Environmental factors determine the type of behavior a leader should exhibit to maximize outcomes.
In the original theory, House (1974; 1996) proposed four leadership styles: Directive, Supportive, Participative, and Achievement-oriented. Directive leadership is like initiating structure in that it tells subordinates what to do and how to do it. Path-goal theory predicts that directive leadership positively affects followers when their tasks are ambiguous. In contrast, it negatively affects followers who have unclear tasks. Supportive leadership is similar to consideration in that it emphasizes supporting the needs and well-being of followers while promoting a friendly environment.
Path-goal theory predicts that supportive leadership increases subordinate satisfaction when tasks are repetitive and unpleasant. Achievement-oriented leadership sets challenging goals, stresses performance, and demonstrates confidence in the ability of followers to attain high-performance standards. Path-goal theory predicts that achievement-oriented leadership promotes follower confidence and action to accomplish challenging goals when their tasks are ambiguous and non-repetitive.
Participative leadership consults with subordinates, seeks their suggestions to develop a consensus, and then does what the group wants to do. Path-goal theory predicts that participative leadership supports satisfaction when tasks are non-repetitive, and the subordinates are willing to submit to the leader.
By the end of the 20th century, House (1996) believed that leadership is a more complicated process that requires a broader range of leadership behavior than he had accounted for in his original theory. Other behaviors he proposed included path-goal clarifying, achievement-oriented, work facilitation, supportive, interaction facilitation, group-oriented decision-making, representation and networking, and value-based. Follower characteristics determine how the leader interprets the follower and the environment and interact with the environmental variables and leadership behavior to influence the outcome.
According to the initial statement of the path-goal model, an employee’s performance and satisfaction will improve if the leader compensates for elements lacking in either the environment or the employee (House & Mitchell, Path-goal theory of leadership. , 1974). In the modified theory, House expanded the outcome of effective leadership to include follower motivation, follower satisfaction, follower performance, acceptance of leader by followers, and work-unit performance.
Although the path-goal theory is a complex construct with little research support (Yukl, 2010; Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2005), it offers essential insights for leadership practice. First, the path-goal theory suggests that effective leaders can adjust leadership styles to compensate for variables in the environment and the employee. Second, the theory offers environmental and follower variables that may be essential contingency factors influencing leadership outcomes. Leadership training programs can help leaders to diagnose situations and modify behavior or variables to influence outcomes.