Leadership Theories: Path-Goal, Contingency, and Integrative

Introduction to Leadership and Leadership Theory

A successful leader is an individual who influences his or her followers toward attaining an organization's aspirations. Leadership, therefore, is the process of influencing or convincing others to achieve organizational goals. Three noteworthy points emerge from this definition. First, being a leader is inherently a social influence process—one cannot be called a leader without followers. Second, a good leader elicits voluntary compliance from followers; this is the most important feature of leadership, since voluntarily compliant followers will do a better job than those who comply only because of formal authority. Third, leadership elicits purposeful, goal-oriented behavior from followers (Lussier & Achua, 2013).

Leadership is perhaps the most commonly discussed topic in organizational science. Thousands of studies have been published, and many books have been written in business-oriented academic journals and other publications. Despite the volume of research, the relationship between leadership and important variables—such as performance, commitment, and employee satisfaction—remains uncertain. Fred Luthans, in his 2005 work Organizational Behavior, stated that leadership remains an unexplainable concept.

A leadership theory endeavors to explain some concept or aspect of leadership. Leadership theories hold important value in helping individuals understand how to become better leaders and how to handle certain situations correctly. The main objective of leadership theories, therefore, is to inform practice. Leadership theories are classified into four major classes: integrative, contingency, behavioral, and trait. Beyond theory, there is also the concept of a leadership paradigm—a shared mindset that reflects a fundamental approach to studying, thinking about, perceiving, and understanding leadership. Several changes have taken place in leadership paradigms over the last six decades, representing a significant shift in leadership conceptualization (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2006; Lussier & Achua, 2013).

Path-Goal Leadership Theory

Path-Goal leadership theory describes the leadership styles and behaviors that best fit certain workplaces and employees in order to achieve set goals (House & Mitchell, 1974). The objective is to increase followers' satisfaction, empowerment, and motivation so that they may improve their performance. The Path-Goal model draws from Vroom's (1964) expectancy theory, which holds that an individual will act in a particular way if he or she expects that their conduct will bring about a particular outcome, and based on how attractive that outcome is to them. Path-Goal theory was first explained by Martin Evans (1970) and later expanded by House (1971).

The best way to understand Path-Goal theory is as a process in which leaders select certain behaviors that best fit the needs of their employees and the working environment, guiding employees along a path toward the attainment of their day-to-day goals (Northouse, 2013). According to this theory, a leader needs to motivate, support, and assist employees in identifying and setting goals, overcoming challenges, improving their performance, and receiving appropriate rewards for work done (House & Mitchell, 1974). Workers often interpret their supervisor's behaviors—including level of ability, affiliation, and degree of structure—based on their own individual needs. For instance, if a leader provides more structure than employees need, they will become less motivated. Leaders must therefore understand their employees' needs and identify the most effective motivators for them.

Advantages

In instances where something needs to be done immediately—such as emergencies or complicated situations with time constraints—this is the most effective leadership model. According to Robert House, the theory's formulator, all theories are eventually proven incorrect, and a theory that cannot be challenged cannot be alive (House, 1971); thus, the theory provides room for adaptability. The revised Path-Goal theory places greater emphasis on group participation, making it more useful in knowledgeable and intelligent teams. The theory is also easy to explain and convey: the analogy of a path that must be cleared, with employees guided along it, can be readily communicated and incorporated into practice.

Disadvantages

The Path-Goal theory assumes that employees are unaware of their actual needs, making it inherently undemocratic. If a leader has significant flaws, the model is likely to fail. Not all leaders are rational, and a leader's chosen "path" might be misguided, placing the group in jeopardy. The model is also vulnerable to collapse when it places excessive dependence on a single leader who, for any reason, may be unable to carry out his or her functions (Northouse, 2013).

Application

Carol is a division manager at Brako, where she leads a highly motivated team of employees. She ensures that employees can speak to her openly about different issues, and she mentors and coaches them on handling various tasks and responsibilities. She is genuinely interested in the needs and well-being of her employees. She also takes into account Brako's goals and aspirations, rewarding employees who make meaningful efforts toward those goals. In other words, her leadership style is achievement-oriented (Northouse, 2013, p. 150). Even though the case study does not indicate what specific responsibilities her team is tasked with, her leadership style appears effective and organizational goals are being achieved (Shriberg & Shriberg, 2011).

Contingency Leadership Theory

The behavioral and trait leadership theories were efforts to identify the single best leadership style for all work environments, and as such were referred to as universal theories. In the 1960s, however, it became clear that no one leadership style suits all situations (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993). This prompted a shift in leadership paradigm from universal theories to contingency theory. Contingency leadership theory attempts to describe different leadership styles based on the situation, the followers, and the leader. Simply put, it explains how particular behaviors or traits will bring about leadership success in a given situation. The theory emphasizes situational variables such as the characteristics of followers, the external environment, and the nature of the work performed.

Contingency approaches occupy a middle ground in management theory—between the radical view that universal principles of organization and management exist, and the equally radical view that every organization is unique and must be evaluated individually. The contingency approach involves identifying regularly recurring settings and monitoring how various strategies, structures, and behavioral procedures perform within each setting (Fielder, 1986). Major contingency theories have been proposed and evaluated in relation to organizational structures, surroundings, and characteristics; organizational strategies and competitive conditions; and organizational characteristics and behavioral procedures. Beyond its widespread use by numerous authors, the contingency approach has been a primary theme for theory building and research throughout the management literature.

Pros

Theories founded on contingencies incorporate unique characteristics, even if expressed in general terms. The approach aligns with common sense for those who recognize that context and system dynamics are essential features of any leader-led situation. Contingency theories also encourage deeper thinking about specific features of a leader-led situation that may require additional focus.

Cons

A contingency theory may be expressed in terms too general to have specific applicative value. Determining the relevant aspects of a situation can be highly subjective and may not accurately capture the realities of a leader-led relationship. Moreover, any validation and verification of a modeled system is inherently challenging (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993).

Application

A manager at Artisol Inc. is dealing with a worker who habitually arrives late. Under a rigid protocol, there might be only one option: issue the worker a formal notice. Under a contingency perspective, however, the manager might choose to better understand the situation by discussing the matter directly with the employee before deciding on the most suitable course of action. The value of this approach depends on what the manager learns: there may be mitigating circumstances that are relatively simple to accommodate. In this case, the contingency approach allows the worker to keep his or her job and spares the manager the difficulty of dismissing an employee and recruiting a replacement. A leader's ability to manage from a contingency perspective depends greatly on the nature of the environment and the organization's relationship to that environment. Organizational structure is therefore a major factor in the approach management may take when resolving issues under contingency theory (Luthans, 2005).

References

Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2006). The high impact leader: Moments matter in accelerating authentic leadership development. New York: McGraw Hill.

Evans, M. G. (1970). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 277–298.

Fielder, F. E. (1986). The contribution of cognitive resources to leadership performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 532–545.

Frankenberg, E., & Kotok, S. (2013). Demography and educational politics in the suburban marketplace. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(1), 112–126.

Harris, J. H., Harris, R. B., & Eplion, D. M. (2007). Personality, leader-member exchanges, and work outcomes. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 92–107.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1993). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 1–97.

House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–328.

Kinicki, A., & Kreitner, R. (2006). Organizational behavior. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2013). Leadership: Theory, application, and skill development (5th ed.). South-Western, Cengage Learning.

Luthans, F. (2005). Organizational behavior. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Shriberg, A., & Shriberg, D. (2011). Practicing leadership principles and applications. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.