Introduction
The path-goal leadership theory was developed in order to pinpoint distinct leadership styles that aided in motivating subordinates to meet objectives. Path-goal theory distinguishes between four main leadership styles, which include directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented (Polston-Murdoch, 2013). The directive and achievement-oriented styles tend to be associated with male leaders, while female leaders tend to be associated with supportive and participative styles (Polston-Murdoch, 2013). Whether change initiatives succeed in organizations is often tied to the level and type of employee motivation. In management theory, transformational leadership is tied to change initiatives due to transformational leadership’s emphasis on vision, charisma, and employee empowerment. Transformational leadership styles can be combined with path-goal theory styles, yet a combination of path-goal and transactional leadership styles may be more effective in predicting employee performance (Vecchio, Justin, & Pearce, 2008).
Transactional leadership theory states that employees will be motivated to meet performance objectives based on reward. Likewise, employees will become motivated to perform according to objectives based on the idea of avoiding punishment (Vecchio et al., 2008). Although there is little evidence to suggest that certain styles indentified within path-goal theory produce distinctive employee performance results, path-goal theory does associate increased structure with employee satisfaction if the tasks/environment are unclear (Szilagyi & Sims, 1974). In the healthcare industry, one could argue that there is often a high degree of ambiguity and therefore leadership styles that tend to favor more structure will result in increased employee satisfaction. The dilemma is that increased employee satisfaction is only one component of motivation and performance.
In healthcare environments, higher degrees of structure did not necessarily correlate with higher levels of employee performance (Szilagyi & Sims, 1974). This would suggest that employee performance and motivation are more strongly tied to other factors besides leadership style(s). Perhaps the disconnect between leadership styles that initiate more structure, employee satisfaction and employee performance in healthcare environments exists due to the nature of the work itself. In highly ambiguous situations, employees may feel more supported by leaders who attempt to make sense out of chaos and complexity. Yet, rules and structure do not guarantee that employees will be motivated to perform well in complex and ambiguous situations. High performance in these work environments rather requires the reliance on intrinsic sources of motivation, creative thinking, and empowerment. Striking a balance between the two would seem to require the adoption and integration of multiple leadership styles under path-goal theory – directive and participative.
Path-Goal Leadership
The four leadership styles that path-goal theory defines are directive, achievement-oriented, supportive, and participative (Szilagyi & Sims, 1974). The directive leadership style entails behavior that is focused on work tasks as opposed to relational factors, such as consideration. Behaviors associated with the directive leadership style include the clarification of expectations and the deliverance of detailed guidance. This detailed guidance is based on performance expectations and the organization’s standards (Polston-Murdoch, 2013). The achievement-oriented leadership style is also associated with tasks, rather than relational factors. An achievement-oriented leader tends to set high or difficult goals and expects above par performance. An achievement-oriented leader also tends to place a lot of confidence in subordinates, with the expectation that they will be able to live up to high performance standards (Polston-Murdoch, 2013). The two relational leadership styles are supportive and participative. Leaders who exhibit the supportive style tend to be highly responsive to the needs of employees and have a desire to create a harmonious work environment. Supportive leaders prefer to verbally reward employees, observe the results of their decisions and adhere to employee needs (Polston-Murdoch, 2013). Participative leaders have a tendency to ask employees for their input and consider this input when making decisions about the workplace. Supportive leaders actively engage subordinates in the executive planning and decision-making activities that are traditionally reserved for managers (Polston-Murdoch, 2013).
Employees who perform best under the directive leadership style are those who are new to an organization and/or who lack experience in their respective fields. A directive leadership style is also most appropriate for situations where employees within the organization need to take swift action. Employees who respond best to the achievement-oriented style face ambiguous tasks and do not have enough confidence in their abilities. Employees who are experiencing low morale are good candidates for achievement-oriented leaders. In a similar fashion, supportive leaders are most effective with employees who exhibit low confidence levels and lack motivation. Participative leaders best serve employees who do not have the proper experience to make adequate or good judgment calls. Employees who fail to follow established procedures also perform well under the participative style (Polston-Murdoch, 2013).
Organizational Change
Change in an organization is by definition, an ambiguous set of tasks. Even if leaders have a clearly defined vision that is communicated to subordinates, there is the risk that various subordinates will interpret that communication in different ways. In addition, it is often unclear as to how the proposed changes will affect current procedures, processes, employees, and performance results. Healthcare is in industry that experiences constant change and complexity (Weberg, 2012). Increased skill may be necessary in order to carry out and implement organizational change on a higher level. Skilled positions are considered to contain role ambiguity and be negatively associated with employee satisfaction derived from structure, according to path-goal theory (Szilagyi & Sims, 1974). In other words, those in roles with increased responsibility and decision-making do not appreciate structure as much as those who are in lower-skilled positions. Although this aspect of the theory could be challenged by asserting that some who are in lower-skilled positions possess personalities and ambitions that defy this notion, the theory is focused on the aspect of the positions themselves. The theory does not take into account variances in personalities, whether one is highly motivated by intrinsic sources, or whether one is underemployed in a lower-level position.
Research studies on the integration of path-goal and transformational leadership styles has revealed that a leader’s vision and inspiration had a positive effect on employee performance when the use of contingent rewards was low (Vecchio et al., 2008). In other words, when transactional leadership techniques were not used in conjunction with transformational techniques, employee performance was higher in situations of organizational change. The absence and/or use of transactional leadership techniques have a strong predictive quality on employee performance. What this seems to suggest is not so much that the implementation of transformational techniques leads to successful implementation of change initiatives, but that the optimal use of transactional techniques is more important. Path-goal theory states that part of a leader’s role is to influence the subjective state of subordinates in a positive manner. Providing extrinsic rewards is thought to contribute to intrinsic rewards, thereby leading to increased motivation and performance (Vecchio et al., 2008). Extrinsic rewards fall under transactional leadership techniques and include incentives such as bonuses and additional vacation time.
Healthcare Situations
Path-goal theory can be applied to the healthcare industry given the fact that a variety of leadership styles is needed. The healthcare industry manages and operates complex environments that call for immediate action, nurturing, providing clear direction in ambiguous situations, and the input of frontline employees with a mix of different experience levels. Poor quality and increasing costs are calling for the use of what is referred to as complexity leadership (Weberg, 2012). Increasing diversity in patients and staff are also calling for increased diversity in leaders and leadership styles (Dotson, 2012).
One example in the healthcare industry is the need to transfer to electronic medical records (Weberg, 2012). This is a change that would require a combination of directive, supportive and transformational leadership styles. The introduction of electronic medical records requires learning new technology, implementing new procedures, ways of thinking, and still ensuring patient needs are met and legal regulations are followed. Employees may lack confidence and need clear direction on how to perform tasks under the new procedure(s). A second example in the healthcare industry is the need to address treatment inequities among various ethnicities (Dotson, 2012). While this type of initiative would definitely call for transformational leadership, supportive and directive leadership would also be needed. Overcoming prejudices and systematic biases can require the implementation of authoritative leadership, as well as support for those who feel that they are marginalized by the old system. Although this type of change is often gradual, the need for swift breakdowns of old systems and procedures calls for a directive style.
References
Dotson, E., & Nuru-Jeter, A. (2012). Setting the stage for a business case for leadership
diversity in healthcare: History, research, and leverage. Journal Of Healthcare Management, 57(1), 35-44.
Polston – Murdoch, Leana (2013). An investigation of path-goal theory, relationship of
leadership style, supervisor-related commitment, and gender. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 6(1), pp.13-44
Szilagyi, A. D., & Sims Jr., H. P. (1974). An exploration of the path-goal theory of leadership in
a health care environment. Academy Of Management Journal,17(4), 622-634. doi:10.2307/255642
Weberg, D. (2012). Complexity leadership: A healthcare imperative. Nursing Forum, 47(4),
268-277. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6198.2012.00276.x
Vecchio, R. P., Justin, J. E., & Pearce, C. L. (2008). The utility of transactional and
transformational leadership for predicting performance and satisfaction within a path-goal theory framework. Journal Of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 81(1), 71-82.
