A number of propositions are made based on the theory – these propositions
describe the circumstances (based on combinations of situational and subordinate
characteristics) in which the different leader behaviours will produce the most
desirable results (see Yukl 2010: 170-171 for a summary).
Despite considerable empirical work base on the path-goal theory, meta analyses
have found that results are inconclusive (Wofford and Liska 1993; Podsakoff et al.
1995) and Yukl (2010: 172) identifies a number of methodological weaknesses
with the majority of empirical studies which may account for this shortcoming. In
addition, Yukl describes a number of conceptual deficiencies in the path-goal
theory. Foremost of these deficiencies is the path-goal theory’s reliance on the
underpinning expectancy theory of motivation which itself is described as
providing “...an overly complex and seemingly unrealistic description of human
behaviour” (Yukl 2010: 172).
While this research does not explicitly draw upon path-goal theory, the role of
leaders in clarifying goals and encouraging employee effort towards these goals is
embodied within the Inspirational Motivational (IM) dimension of transformational
leadership (TL) theory. This research does, however, draw upon the concept of
Inspirational Motivational leader behaviour and, in this way, linkages with the
path-goal theory and expectancy theories of motivation can be seen.
Other situational approaches
Vroom and Yetton’s (1973) Normative Decision Theory uses decision tree
modelling to identify, for particular situations, the decision procedures which will
contribute most positively to effective decisions. Vroom and Yetton’s decision
theory stresses the importance of the ‘right amount of participation’. Yukl (2006:
95) regards this model as “...probably the best supported of the contingency
theories” owing to its (i) focus on specific (rather than broad) aspects of
behaviour, (ii) meaningful intervening variables and (iii) its successful
identification of important situational moderator variables. On the other hand,
Yukl (2006: 94) notes several criticisms of the model such as the model’s partial
coverage of leadership issues and its lack of parsimony, simplification of decision-
making processes, and its (implicit) assumption that in practice managers possess
the skills required to implement the decision procedures described.