Comparison of Leadership Theories (Path-Goal & Situational)

Path-Goal Leadership

The path-goal leadership theory, as the name implies, is the path to accomplishing goals through increasing employee motivation. A leader’s role can be divided into two categories, the path to the end result and the rewards which will be tailored to achieve the desired motivation. In this theory, it is the leadership behavior which is changed based on the situation. It’s important to remember a leader is responsible for defining goals, clear a path, and eliminate any hurdles, by doing these three things, a leader can help their followers achieve their goals. Leadership behaviors can be broken down into four categories;

•  Supportive: leadership is based on supporting the needs of the employee, and fosters team building.

•  Directive: this leadership style the employees are told exactly what to do and how to do it. Leaders ensure proper procedure is followed.

•  Achievement-oriented: goals are set and employees are encouraged to continuously improve.

•  Participative styles: leaders encourage support from the team. Employees participate in the decisions being made.

  

Situational Leadership

The situational leadership theory involves the abilities/attitudes of the employees and the situation itself. This theory is divvied into four styles, which all have to do with the difference in the willingness of the employees. The leadership style utilized in a particular situation will depend on the follower’s readiness or maturity as described by Warren Blank, Stephen Green, and John R. Weitzel in their article “A Test of the Situational Leadership Theory”. 

•  Directing: there is an increased concern for the established goals and less for the employee. The leader provided complete instructions. (Low follower readiness)

•  Coaching: equal attention is paid to both the task and employees. (Moderate follower readiness)

•  Supporting: increased attention towards supporting the followers and less on the task, participation from the followers in decision making is encouraged. (High follower readiness)

•  Entrusting: responsibility is given to the team for the given task. Very little support or direction is given to the team. (Very high follower readiness)

Theory comparison

The path-goal and Situational leadership theories both have their similarities and differences. The main focus of the path-goal theory is motivation, what the followers need to complete the task. In contrast, the situational theory is based on the readiness or maturity of the followers; how capable are they? Within each of the two theories, the breakdown of styles is very similar. They both have a directing category in which the leader’s main attention is given to providing directions, and a supporting style which fosters team building and encourages followers to participate in the decision making.

I believe the path-goal theory is the most effective. This leadership theory motivates the followers to perform and the tasks are clearly set and goals communicated; hence, rewards are a large factor in achieving the set goals. 

Similar to the situational theory, the leadership behavior is determined by how capable the followers are. Whether a leader chooses the path-goal or situational theory, I believe people skills play an important role. A leader needs to effectively understand what motivates the followers and what they are capable of doing. By relying on their people skills, leaders can ensure they utilize the proper leadership style; for example, morale could be greatly affected if a directing style is used with highly competent staff. Likewise, the end result may be undesirable if an entrusting style is used with staff who are not competent and require more direction.

References

Blank, W., Weitzel, J. R., & Green, S. G. (1990). A Test of the Situational Leadership Theory. Personnel Psychology, 43(3), 579-597.

Daft, R. L. (2014). The leadership experience (Sixth ed.). Australia: Cengage Learning

Landrum, N., & Daily, C. (2012). Corporate Accountability: A Path-Goal Perspective.        International Journal of Business Insights & Transformation, 450-62.