Similar to Fiedler's work, House's initial statement of path-goal theory focused on situational
moderators upon which leaders' effectiveness is contingent (House, 1971; House & Mitchell, 1974).
Path-goal theory is grounded in Vroom's expectancy theory of motivation, which at its core suggests
that people are more likely to engage in a specific behavior if they perceive a high probability that the
behavior will lead to a valued outcome (Vroom, 1964). An effective leader, according to path-goal
theory, clarifies employees' paths to work goals and the link between work goals and valued personal
outcomes, thus making it explicit what employees need to do. Having a path laid out in front of them
that leads to valued personal outcomes (e.g., merit pay, promotion) was posited as a motivator for
employees to pursue those outcomes and engage in the desired behaviors. According to path-goal
theory, the extent to which certain leadership styles (e.g., directive, supportive, participative, and
achievement-oriented leadership) aided in clarifying employees' paths depended on the employees'
personal characteristics and on contextual demands with which employees may have to cope.
Hersey and Blanchard (1982) proposed a practitioner-oriented situational leadership theory that placed
leader effectiveness squarely in the interaction between leader behaviors and the followers' level of
maturity. Specifically, the theory suggests that leaders should match their behaviors with the
followers' maturity level by moving through the phases of telling, selling, participating, and delegating
to correspond to increased follower readiness. Each phase was categorized via the two dimensions of
task and relationship behavior. For example, when followers are not yet willing to assume any
UHVSRQVLELOLW\ ORZPDWXULW\ DOHDGHUVKRXOG³WHOO ́WKHPZKDWWRGRDQGGLVSOD\KLJKOHYHOVRIWDVN
behaviors while limiting relationship behaviors. As followers become more mature, it is important for
a leader to provide additional socio-emotional support while finally, in the delegation phase, task
guidance does not need to be provided anymore, because followers are fully aware of their
responsibilities and are willing to assume the challenges.
4.2.4 SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY
At approximately the same time that contingency theories were becoming prominent in the leadership
field, a somewhat separate line of research emerged that focused on the dyadic relationship between
leaders and their followers. This research questioned the assumption of an average leadership style
that may be equally effective with all followers and advanced the field by shifting attention towards
the leader±follower relationship as the primary domain of analysis (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995;
Schriesheim et al., 1999). Leader Member Exchange (LMX) emphasized how leaders develop two
disWLQFWW\SHVRIUHODWLRQVKLSVZLWKWKHLUIROORZHUV RQHEDVHGRQ³LQIOXHQFHZLWKRXWDXWKRULW\ ́DQGRQH
EDVHG RQ ³LQIOXHQFH ZLWK DXWKRULW\ ́ (Dansereau et al., 1975, p.48). The ability of the leader to