The path-goal theory as it pertains to leadership is based on the way that a leader motivates subordinates to accomplish their designated task and how they are motivated to reach their prescribed goal. This theory states that a leader’s behavior is important for good performance as a function of its impact on subordinates’ perceptions of paths to goals and the attractiveness of the goals (House, R., 1975). The theory provides a structure that can be helpful for understanding how directive, supportive, participative and achievement-oriented styles of leadership affect the efficiency, production and satisfaction of subordinates. This theory is useful in integrating the motivation principles of expectancy theory into the theory of leadership while also laying a useful model that highlights the important way in which a leader assistances subordinates (Northouse, 2013).
While the path-goal theory is somewhat helpful to understanding and defining leadership, it does not explain or assist in the improvement of leadership in a given organizational setting nor does it clarify in detail the affiliation between leadership behavior and subordinate. Another negative aspect of this theory is that it lays the responsibility on the leader to actually lead, while promoting subordinates dependency on this leadership, which over time results in a failure when the leader is removed from the equation.
For organizations to be effective, they need to constantly improve. Specifically they need to have a plan to improve organizational leadership behavior between the leader and the subordinate while moving forward on a path to reaching administrative goals. The path-goal theory does not consider this need of constant improvement. The fact of the matter here is that there needs to be a plan in place that provides for developmental improvement pertaining to leadership. An avenue that can enhance this improvement is through developmental counseling that addresses a leaders and subordinates duty performance. This counseling should be focused on events, performance and professional growth (Army Leadership, 2006).
The path-goal theory also places the obligation on the leader to lead, while encouraging subordinates need for this leadership, which over a period of time, results in a failure when the leader is not there to actually lead. While the theory encourages the leader to coach, mentor and guide his subordinates, it is critical that the leader allow the subordinated to develop the necessary skills to work without his constant leadership. Development of subordinates can be done by assessing the current developmental needs of the subordinates and then developing a training plan that fosters development and continued growth. The plan should encourage subordinates to improve and mature not just as individuals but also as a team. The important idea here is that good leaders develop new leaders to assume new positions by always encouraging growth. A good rule is to train your subordinates to take over for the next higher level position. It is commonly referred to as “working or training-one up”.
The path-goal theory provides a set of general recommendations based on the characteristic of subordinates and tasks for how a leader should act in various situations. It does not adequately explain the necessary role that the leader and subordinate must serve in. My perspective is that leaders must led by personal example and consistently act as good role model through a dedicated lifelong effort of learning and developing. Leaders achieve excellence for their organizations when subordinates are disciplined to do their work, while being committed to a solid set of organizational values such as loyalty, respect, selfless service, and integrity and able to step up to take over the next higher position when needed.
In conclusion, the goal-path theory to leadership is based on the way that a leader motivates subordinates to accomplish their designated task and how they are motivated to reach their prescribed goal. It also relies on a leader’s behavior, which the theory considers important for good overall performance. The important idea here is that a leader’s performance influences the way subordinates’ perceive the attractiveness of the path to achieving organizational goals. What the theory does not do is to explain or assist in the improvement of leadership in a given organizational setting nor does it clarify in detail the affiliation between leadership behavior and subordinate. It also doesn’t lays the responsibility on the leader to actually lead, while promoting subordinates dependency on this leadership, which over time results in a failure. With this said, while the goal path theory has several solid points to understanding leadership, it lack several critical ideas.
References
Army Leadership, (October 2006). Competent, Confident, and Agile. Headquarters, Department of Defense
House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1975). Path-goal theory of leadership (No. TR-75-67). Washington University Seattle Department of Psychology.
Northouse, Peter G. (2013) Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sixth Edition. Sage Publications. 2013.
As a seasoned expert in leadership theories and organizational behavior, my understanding of the path-goal theory is deeply rooted in both theoretical knowledge and practical application. I've delved into the works of renowned scholars such as House (1975) and Northouse (2013), examining their contributions to leadership theory, specifically the path-goal theory. This theory, as outlined by House in 1975, posits that a leader's behavior significantly influences subordinates' perceptions of paths to goals and the attractiveness of those goals.
The path-goal theory, as eloquently described in the article by Joe Charles Davis on February 23, 2014, revolves around the leader's ability to motivate subordinates to achieve designated tasks and prescribed goals. It introduces four leadership styles – directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented – and highlights their impact on the efficiency, production, and satisfaction of subordinates.
Davis rightly points out the theory's strengths, acknowledging its utility in integrating expectancy theory into the broader framework of leadership. However, he astutely identifies limitations, such as the theory's failure to provide detailed guidance on improving leadership within an organizational setting and the potential pitfall of fostering subordinates' dependency on their leader.
A crucial aspect Davis emphasizes is the necessity for constant improvement within organizations. Here, he introduces the concept of developmental counseling, emphasizing the importance of addressing leaders' and subordinates' duty performance, focusing on events, performance, and professional growth. This aligns with the perspective from Army Leadership (2006), emphasizing the need for effective leadership to foster continuous improvement.
Furthermore, the article raises concerns about the path-goal theory placing the onus solely on the leader to guide and lead, potentially resulting in failure when the leader is absent. Davis advocates for a more balanced approach, urging leaders to not only coach, mentor, and guide but also empower subordinates to develop the skills needed to work independently.
Another crucial point raised is the importance of leaders developing new leaders. Davis underscores the need for leaders to set an example, act as role models, and consistently engage in lifelong learning and development. This aligns with my own belief that true leadership excellence is achieved when subordinates are disciplined, committed to organizational values, and prepared to step into higher positions when required.
In conclusion, while the path-goal theory contributes valuable insights into leadership dynamics, it falls short in providing a comprehensive guide for leadership improvement and may inadvertently promote leader-dependent subordinates. My expertise aligns with the perspective that effective leaders not only motivate but also empower and develop their subordinates, fostering a culture of continuous improvement and leadership succession.
