Both the Fiedler contingency model and Hersey and Blanchard’s SLT have some intu-
itive appeal. Blanchard’s work, for instance, is widely applied in the workplace. However,
both theories have received far less empirical support, and Fiedler’s theory has been
found more difficult to apply in the work situation than the next model we consider,
path-goal theory.^24
Path-Goal Theory
Currently, one of the most respected approaches to leadership is path-goal theory.
Developed by University of Toronto professor Martin Evans in the late 1960s, it was
later expanded on by Robert House (formerly at the University of Toronto, but now at
the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania). Path-goal theory
is a contingency model of leadership that extracts key elements from the Ohio State
leadership research on initiating structure and consideration and from the expectancy
theory of motivation.^25
The essence of the theory is that it is the leader’s job to assist followers attain their goals
and to provide the necessary direction and/or support to ensure that their individual goals
are compatible with the overall goals of the group or organization. The term path-goal
derives from the belief that effective leaders both clarify the path to help their followers
achieve their work goals and make the journey along the path easier by reducing road-
blocks and pitfalls.
According to this theory, leaders should follow three guidelines to be effective:^26
- Determine the outcomes subordinates want.These might include good pay, job
security, interesting work, and the autonomy to do one’s job. - Reward individuals with their desired outcomeswhen they perform well.
- Let individuals know what they need to do to receive rewards(that is, the path to
the goal), remove any barriers that would prevent high performance, and
express confidence that individuals have the ability to perform well.
Path-goal theory identifies four leadership behaviours that might be used in differ-
ent situations to motivate individuals: - The directive leaderlets followers know what is expected of them, schedules
work to be done, and gives specific guidance as to how to accomplish tasks.
This closely parallels the Ohio State dimension of initiating structure. This
behaviour is best used when individuals have difficulty doing tasks or the
tasks are ambiguous. It would not be very helpful when used with individuals
who are already highly motivated, have the skills and abilities to do the task,
and understand the requirements of the task. - The supportive leaderis friendly and shows concern for the needs of followers.
This is essentially synonymous with the Ohio State dimension of considera-
tion. This behaviour is often recommended when individuals are under stress
or otherwise show that they need to be supported. - The participative leaderconsults with followers and uses their suggestions
before making a decision. This behaviour is most appropriate when individu-
als need to buy in to decisions. - The achievement-oriented leadersets challenging goals and expects followers to
perform at their highest level. This behaviour works well with individuals who
like challenges and are highly motivated. It would be less effective with less
capable individuals or those who are highly stressed from overwork.
As Exhibit 8-6 on page 266, illustrates, path-goal theory proposes two types of con-
tingency variables that affect the leadership behaviour–outcome relationship: envi-
Chapter 8Leadership 265path-goal theory A theory that
says it’s the leader’s job to assist fol-
lowers in attaining their goals and to
provide the necessary direction
and/or support to ensure that their
individual goals are compatible with
the overall goals.
Path-Goal Theory
http://faculty.css.edu/dswenson/web/
LEAD/path-goal.html