Path goal theory

There is a management theory where, to achieve a desired organisational outcome, a leader can clarify the job 'structure' on one hand, or increase the 'motivators' on the other (Dansereau et al, 2013; Hernandez et al., 2011). It is known as the Path Goal theory, and was devised by Robert House way back in 1971.

Building on Victor Vroom's expectancy theory, the Path Goal theory proposes that "leaders, to be effective, engage in behaviors that complement subordinates’ environments and abilities in a manner that compensates for deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction and individual and work unit performance" (1996, p. 353). In plain English, this is where effective leaders leverage work context and staff abilities to optimally achieve both staff satisfaction and organisational goals (Dansereau et al, 2013; Evans, 1996; House, 1971, 1996; House & Mitchell, 1975). And along the way, it also "clarifies employees' paths to work goals and the link between work goals and valued personal outcomes, thus making it explicit what employees need to do" (Hernandez et al., 2011, p. 1170).

From this latter point, we can see that the Path Goal theory is not only a theory of leadership or management: it is also a theory of followership. Our locus of control can move (see more here). The Path Goal theory makes room for staff-driven development; "encourag[ing] self-expansion in followers by directing followers toward a mutually desired goal" or two (Dansereau et al, 2013, p. 806). This idea of shared purpose builds a sense of team in the workplace, where everyone gets the endorphin blast of working together to achieve something larger than ourselves.

Not a bad idea. 

However, we also need to consider leader development. Leaders need to be able to 'see' the team's abilities, and the constraints of the environment, and to have a quiver of options available to assist staff to motivate themselves. Harking back to the "selling telling participating delegating" leadership theory of Hersey and Blanchard (Blanchard & Hersey, 1996; originally published 1969):

• Supportive leadership. Where followers lack self-confidence, leaders can adopt a "supportive" leadership style to increase follower confidence and achieve work outcomes (House, 1971, 1996, House & Mitchell, 1975)
• Directive leadership. Where there is an ambiguous job, the leader can be more directive, to clarify the path to rewards (House, 1971, 1996, House & Mitchell, 1975)
• Achievement-Oriented leadership. Where there is a lack of role challenge, the leader can take an achievement-oriented approach, setting stretch goals to make room for challenge (House, 1971, 1996, House & Mitchell, 1975)
• Participative leadership. And where the rewards do not seem to motivate the team, taking a team-solution approach where everyone works together to clarify the changing nature of desired rewards (House, 1971, 1996, House & Mitchell, 1975).

This is a useful theory. While I think directive leadership is no longer a useful solution to ambiguity (largely because few roles seem unambiguous today), the binary option of clarifying the path to the goal or increasing desired rewards is very helpful. It is also a useful argument to illustrate why restrictive HR practices will work against organisations.

Sam

References:

Blanchard, K. H., & Hersey, P. (1996). Great ideas revisited. Training & Development, 50(1), 42-48. 

Dansereau, F., Seitz, S. R., Chiu, C.-Y., Shaughnessy, B., & Yammarino, F. J. (2013). What makes leadership, leadership? Using self-expansion theory to integrate traditional and contemporary approaches. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), 798–821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.008

Evans, M. G. (1996). RJ House's “A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness”. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 305-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90021-1

Hernandez, M., Eberly, M. B., Avolio, B. J., & Johnson, M. D. (2011). The loci and mechanisms of leadership: Exploring a more comprehensive view of leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1165-1185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.009

House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7

House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321-339. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391905

House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1975). Path-goal theory of leadership [Technical Report 75-67]. Organizational Effectiveness Research Programs Office of Naval Research.  https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8b0c/d3ea175f1a28db0d6c109fad7f6674afaef5.pdf