Scribd Logo
Cargar

¡Te damos la bienvenida a Scribd!

  • Path-Goal Theory of Leadership

    Cargado por

    Z. Wen
    1K vistas16 páginas
    from http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/paper.cfm?paperID=674

    Título original

    Path-goal Theory of Leadership

    Derechos de autor

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formatos disponibles

    PDF o lea en línea desde Scribd

    ¿Le pareció útil este documento?

    ¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

    Denunciar este documento
    from http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/paper.cfm?paperID=674

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Descargue como PDF o lea en línea desde Scribd
    Marcar por contenido inapropiado
    1K vistas16 páginas

    Path-Goal Theory of Leadership

    Cargado por

    Z. Wen
    from http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/paper.cfm?paperID=674

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Descargue como PDF o lea en línea desde Scribd
    Marcar por contenido inapropiado
    de 16
    PATH-GOAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP: LESSONS, LEGACY, AND A REFORMULATED THEORY Robert J. House* The Wharton Schoo! of Management 1 hs ype presenta evapetve review of he develope’ ad iso ofthe paths teary of ‘der elec. by deste he eg the ery. ‘The Des ste suman. Te ‘sour mebodopes it ave een bol the they sd lessons ee fom emp eg {ie Gace Two legacies ofthese esrb tee freer heoy ane 1976 ‘ery of chrimatelesenip. A eformlted 1986 pugs! thoy of werk unt lees i presen ‘he reformed theory spies Inder behavior that ethane serine emponemest and ‘stebon and wock ant and sori efetseness rene the eects of lene 08 ie ‘ovation so bis of imme woodnats ud he eles of ld om work nt eran “he reecrlatedhory nls cles of ede bean neal ince of were nd ntngeney toler vanes wich a aed to each erin 26 propotios. The contngscy ‘Rodeos be eory se some of he reuse inhi ech te betas ae ee ‘Sane orteflestve I arle tt he cunal driyig alone om wich he eopinns a ‘derived is ingly panes The eee of he thay the meta pein it ees ob ‘ei ngaetn behaviors complemen sorte ensivonmont an able mae ha! “Simperssfo defcencies nd ramet 0 abd wigan an indian wor it ‘Peformance. Ths ea popostion. andthe sei poostns derived a are conse wi fara tee prctons of carentexa oes o laes,Fut Oe roposioes of the ry 25 comet wa empress with pineal geerzions esting om Carer tsk an eon [my Rope it the 1995 hoy wi te subjected to empl xs dh soc es wld 08 Farber mpoed theory the formated ome Fare ie has been over twenty five years since the original publication ofthe path-goal theory of leader effectiveness (House, 1971). Since that time there have been between 40 and 50 studies designed to test propositions of the theory. The results of these empirical Decal cerpendenc io: Robe Hause Ph The Wace School f Mangement Unveiy oP ‘sania Roos, els Bing 3414 Wale Ste. Pdi, PA OID, aaership Quer 7), 525.350 opis 019609 IA rl ‘Allape oferascion in an orm see ISSN! 10089803 ws LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol? No. 31996 investigations are mixed, some showing support and others failing to suppor the theory. ‘Unfortunately, a6 YukI (99a) has noted, the theory has not been adequately tested. This state of affairs is lrgely a result of the use of inappropriate methods o test the theory. The use of inappropriate methods is partially due tothe methodological precedents established inthe original tests (House, 1971), as well asthe prevailing norms in the 1970s and 1980s ‘which were rather lenient with respect to methodological and conceptual rigor. Further, the ‘boundary conditions of the theory were not adequately specified. Upon reflection I believe itis now possible to specify the boundary conditions within which the theory likely hols [will discuss the above issues in greater detail below ‘A numberof lessons canbe learned from a review of the history of path goal theory of, leadership. In some ways the history’ of path-goal theory reflects the history ofthe field of ‘organizational behavior. Inthe following sections I will briefly describe the origin of the theory. The theory will then be summarized. The various methodologies that have been sed (est the theory and lessons learned from empirical testing will then be discussed. I will then describe ovo legacies of the theory. A reformulated 1996 path-pol theory of ‘work-unit leadership wil ten be presented. Finally I wll conclude witha personal closing ORIGIN ‘The path-goa theory of leader effectiveness was developed to reconcile prior findings and anomalies resulting from empirical investigations of the effects of leader tsk orientation and leader peron orientation on subordinate satisfaction and performance. Prior to the introduction ofthe theory, the leadership literature was dominated by concerns with, and ‘esearch on, task and person orientation. The most frequently used measures were the Ohio Sate leader initiating stracture and leader consideration scales (Stogill & Coons, 1957) ‘The findings were mixed, Some studies showed postive relationships between these Wo ‘aiables and leader, work-unit, or subordinate performance and satisfaction. Some studies found either no such relationships, ora postive relationship between only one of the two leader behaviors and dependent variables. Further. several studies showed negative relationships between leader initiating strcture and various indicators of subordinate satisfaction (Bass, 1990; Korman, 1966) ‘The theory was stimulated by Evans’ (1970) paper in which the relationships between the ‘Ohio State messures of leader consideration and leader initiating strcture and follower perceptions of path-goal relationships (instumentaiies and expectancies) were assessed vans found support forthe hypothesis thatthe leader behaviors would be positively related to follower pathgoal perceptions in one organization, but ot in a second organization, At the time Iead the paper by Evans, L was struggling to make sense ofa set of findings that indicated that the same leader behaviors had different effects from sample to sample. The findings by Evans suggested to me thatthe effects of the two leader behaviors ate likely contingent on the organizational context in which the leaders and followers worked More specifically, atthe time I read Evans’ 1970 paper, was thinking about some of my ‘own recently computed findings that showed a positive relationship between leader Inkiating structure and satisfaction of subordinate white collar professional employees in research and engineering. departments of large manufacturing organizations. Such a Lessons, Legacy, and a Reformuated Theory 325 relationship was not found in prior studies. Rather, the litereture at that te included only reports of negative relationships between leader initiating structure and subordinate satisfaction (Korman, 1966). Thus I was faced with an anomaly for which I had no explanation until I read the paper by Evans, Evans’ paper suggested to me that the relationship berween structure and subordinate satisfaction and motivation is contingent on the degree to which subordinates needed clarification ofthe belavors required of them in onder to perform effectively. Once I began thinking in terms of such contingencies and the effect of leaders on subordinate mativation, a numberof hypotheses came 1 mind. lealled Evans and asked him how he felt about my publishing 8 paper entitled, "Pab-Goal Theory of Leadership.” He replied that his paper did not presenta theory, and encouraged me t0 ‘develop one, Thus the theory was bor, ‘THE THEORY ‘The Scope OF The Theory ‘The scope of path-goal theory reflects the dominant paradigms ofthe study of leadership through about 1975. Path-goal theory is a dyadic theory of supervision. It concerns relationships between formally appointed superiors and subordinates in their day-to-day functioning. It is concerned with how formally appointed superiors affect the motivation tnd satisfaction of subordinates. It isa dyadic theory of supervision in that st does not suddress the effect of leaders on groups or work units, but eather the effets of superiors on subordinates. Consistent with the dominant leadership paradigm of the time, path-goal theory is primarily’ theory of tak and person oriented supervisory behavior, Also consstet with the dominant paradigm, it does not concem the leadership of entire organizations, temergent-informal leadership, leadership 2s it affects several levels of managers and subordinates in organizations, political behavior of leaders, strategic leadership of ‘organizations, or ladership as itreates to change Essential Notions. Inthe initial version ofthe theary it was aserted that “the motivational function of the leader consists of increasing personal payoffs to subordinates for work-goa attinment and ‘making the path to these payoffs easier to travel by clarifying it, reducing roadblocks and pitfalls, and increasing the opportunities fr personal satisfaction enroute," (House, 1971, 324). Ina later version of path-goal theory House and Mitchell (1974) advanced two general propositions Leader behavior is acceptable and satisfying 19 subordinates to the extent thatthe ssbordinaes see such tehavor as either an immediate source of satisfaction oF instrumental to fare sistction (p84). eater behave i motivational, inereases effort tthe extent that (1) such behavior ‘Bakes satisfaction of subordinates needs coningent on elective performance and (2) sich tehavior complements the environment of sobordinates by providing coaching, 2ubance. supprt and reward necessary fo effective performance (p. 84) 226 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 7 No. 3 1996 ‘The essential notion underlying th path-goal theory is that individuals in positions of authority, superiors, willbe effective tothe extent that they complement the environment in which their subordinates work by providing the necessary cognitive clarifications to censure that subordinates expect that they can attain work goals and that they will experience intinsic satisfaction and receive valent rewards a a result of work goal attainment. To the extent thatthe environment does not provide for clear causal linkages between effort and goal atainment,and between goal attainment and extrinsic rewards, it {is the leaders function to arrange Such linkages. To te extent that subordinates do not perceive such linkages when the do indeed exist, it isthe leaders function to clarify such perception. Finally, to the extent that subordinates lack suppor or resources requied t0 accomplish work goals, i isthe leaders function to provide Such support and resources. ‘Thus, consistent with Katz and Kahn's (1978) definition of leadership, the roe of the leader is to provide the necessary incremental information. suppor. and resources, over and above those provided by the formal organization or the subordinate's environment, t0 ensure both subordinate satisfaction and effective performance. According tothe theory leaders are justified in ther role by being instrumental tothe performance and satisfaction of subordinates INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: LEADER BEHAVIORS. ‘The independent variables of the theory are leader behaviors. The seminal paper in whieh the theory was advanced (House, 1971) made assertions about two general classes of leader behavior: path-gosl clarifying behavior and behavior direced toward satisfying subordinate needs. These behaviors were decribed generally but not defined operationally 8 par ofthe theory. However, inthe tests reported in that paper, The Ohio State measures of leader inating structure and consideration (Stogdill 1965) were used as approximate measures of path-goal clarifying behvior and behivier directed toward satisfying subordinate needs. Subsequently, House and Mitchell (1974) defined four kinds of ‘behavior in more specific terms: 1. Directive path-goal clarifing leader behavior is behavior directed toward providing psychological structure for subordinates: leting subordinates know what they are expected todo, scheduling and coordinating work, giving specific guidance, and clarifying polices, rues, and procedures. Directive behavior is one form of path-goal clarifying behavior. Nonauthortaran and noapunitive directive leader ‘behavior was asserted in the seminal path-goal theory paper to reduce subordinate role ambiguity, clarify follower perceptions concerning the degree to which their cffor would result in sucessful performance (goa attainment), and the degree to ‘which performance would be extinsically rewarded with recognition by the leader ‘through pay, advancement, job security and the like. 2 Supportive ‘leader behavior is behavior directed toward the satisfaction of subordinates needs and preferences, such as displaying concern for subordinates’ ‘welfare and creating a friendly and psychologically supportive work environment Supportive leader behavior was asserted tobe a source of self confidence and socal satisfaction and a source of stress reduction and alleviation of frustration for subordinates (House & Mitchell, 1974) Supportive leader behavior was asserted t0 Lessons, Legacy, and a Reformulated Theory wr ‘increase performance of subordinates tothe extent that it increases the net positive ‘valences associated with goal-directed effort House, 1971), Thus supportive leader ‘behavior was expected to increase performance when such behavior was contingent ‘0n goal-directed effr. 3. Participative leader behavior is behavior directed toward encouragement of subordinate influence on decision making and work unt operation: consulting with subordinstes and taking their opinions and suggestions into account when making

    También podría gustarte