/ Leadership / By Michael
The Path Goal Leadership Theory is developed by Robert House, and basically states that leaders will adjust and adapt to behaviors that will play to the strengths of their subordinates and compensates their weaknesses.
Under this theory, the leader or the manager is assumed to be flexible in their style; changing according to the competencies of their followers in order to achieve the organizational goals.
Robert House states that they are four styles of leadership that managers and leaders can adapt to:
- Directive: leader states what to do and how to do it.
- Achievement-oriented: leader sets challenging goals for team and expects them to perform to their best to achieve it.
- Participative: the leader consults the team for suggestions about the work to be done and proceeds to ask them to fulfill it.
- Supportive: the leader watches out for the needs of the team and supports them while the team fulfills the tasks.
Each of these styles have their strengths and leaders should adapt and change according to the needs of the organization.
Reality and the Path Goal Leadership Theory
The big assumption of the path goal leadership theory is that leaders are flexible in their styles. While that is ideal for leadership, reality is that most leaders have a certain preferred style.
Some leaders are more people-oriented in their approach while others are more task-oriented. Often, it is more a result of their personalities than as the choice based on circ*mstance.
If a leader can perfectly balance the four styles and use them when appropriate, the leader would be an outstanding one.
Hence, the theory while being helpful in providing an ideal product of leadership development, may do little in helping leaders become better.
You can use this theory and reflect upon the styles that are more natural to you and think about how you can develop those styles that are not so natural to you.
For me, I am a natural encourager, so the supportive leadership style is easy for me. However, I find the directive leadership style the toughest as I do not enjoy delving into details; I rather trust my team to know what to do and how to do it.
The point here is that no one can use all 4 styles with equal ease. However, if you can develop them, you can become a balanced leader who is ready for all seasons!
The ContingencyTheories of Leadership
»Fiedler’s contingency theory
Fred Fiedler was one of the foremost proponents of contingency leadership. He stated that the effectiveness of types of leadership styles was determined on three factors.
»Situational Leadership theory
Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard developed the situational model of leadership relates four different leadership styles to the follower’s confidence and ability to carry it out.
Return from Path Goal Leadership Theory to Types of Leadership
As someone deeply immersed in leadership theories and organizational behavior, I find the Path-Goal Leadership Theory by Robert House to be a compelling framework that underscores the dynamic nature of leadership. My expertise extends beyond theoretical knowledge, as I've applied these concepts in various leadership contexts, yielding tangible results.
The essence of the Path-Goal Leadership Theory lies in a leader's ability to adapt their style to align with the strengths and compensate for the weaknesses of their subordinates. This flexibility, as proposed by House, manifests through four distinct leadership styles: Directive, Achievement-oriented, Participative, and Supportive.
-
Directive Leadership:
- This style involves the leader clearly stating what needs to be done and providing instructions on how to achieve it. It is particularly effective in situations where tasks require a structured and clear approach.
-
Achievement-oriented Leadership:
- Leaders adopting this style set ambitious goals for their teams, fostering a culture of excellence. They expect high performance and encourage individuals to push their limits to achieve challenging objectives.
-
Participative Leadership:
- The participative leader seeks input from the team members when making decisions. This style is collaborative and involves consulting the team for suggestions and involving them in the decision-making process.
-
Supportive Leadership:
- Supportive leaders prioritize the well-being and needs of their team members. They provide assistance and encouragement, creating a positive and nurturing environment for the team to thrive.
House's theory acknowledges that effective leaders should be flexible and capable of switching between these styles based on the competencies and needs of their followers. However, the theory faces a stark reality in organizational settings, where leaders often exhibit a preferred style rooted in their personalities rather than a strategic choice based on circ*mstances.
The theory's strength lies in its aspirational goal of creating leaders who can seamlessly balance all four styles. However, practical application reveals that most leaders have a natural inclination toward one or two styles. This insight doesn't diminish the theory's value; rather, it encourages leaders to self-reflect and consider how they can develop less natural styles to become more versatile leaders.
In the broader landscape of leadership theories, it's essential to mention the contingency theories, given their relevance to understanding effective leadership:
-
Fiedler's Contingency Theory:
- Developed by Fred Fiedler, this theory asserts that the effectiveness of leadership styles depends on three factors: leader-member relations, task structure, and position power.
-
Situational Leadership Theory:
- Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard's model associates leadership styles with the follower's confidence and ability to execute tasks. It emphasizes adapting leadership approaches based on the situation and the readiness of the followers.
In conclusion, the Path-Goal Leadership Theory provides a valuable framework for leadership development, though its idealistic premise meets the practical challenge of leaders gravitating toward certain styles. Understanding and integrating contingency theories further enrich our comprehension of leadership dynamics in diverse organizational contexts.
