Reviewing Situational Theory & Path-Goal Theory of Leadership

Situational Theory: The Importance of Selecting the Right Leadership Style

Task:

Let us review Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Theory. Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard developed a leadership model that has gained a strong following among management development specialists. This model Situational Leadership Theory (SLT)—has been incorporated into leadership training programs at over 400 of the Fortune 500 companies, and over one million managers a year from a wide variety of organizations are being taught its basic elements.

Situational leadership is a contingency theory that focuses on the followers. Successful leadership is achieved by selecting the right leadership style, which is contingent on the level of the followers’ readiness. The term readiness refers to “the extent to which people have the ability and willingness to accomplish a specific task.” The emphasis on the followers in leadership effectiveness reflects the reality that it is the followers who accept or reject the leader.  SLT views the leader-follower relationship as analogous to that between a parent and child. Just as a parent needs to relinquish control as a child becomes more mature and responsible, so too should leaders.

Hersey and Blanchard identify four specific leader behaviors—from highly directive to highly laissez-faire. The most effective behavior depends on a follower’s ability and motivation. SLT has an intuitive appeal. Yet, research efforts to test and support the theory have generally been disappointing.

Conversely, one of the most respected approaches to leadership is the path-goal theory developed by Robert House. It is a contingency model of leadership that extracts key elements from the Ohio State leadership research on initiating structure and consideration and the expectancy theory of motivation. It is the leader’s job to assist followers in attaining their goals and to provide the necessary direction and/or support to ensure that their goals are compatible with the overall objectives of the firm. The term path-goal is derived from the belief that effective leaders clarify the path to help their followers achieve their work goals. House identified four leadership behaviors:

The directive leader lets followers know what is expected of them, etc.
The supportive leader is friendly and shows concern for the needs of followers.
The participative leader consults with followers and uses their suggestions before making a decision.
The achievement-oriented leader sets challenging goals and expects followers to perform at their highest level.
In contrast to Fiedler, House assumes leaders are flexible and can display any of these four described behaviors. Also, two classes of situational or contingency variables moderate leadership behavior:
Environmental or outcome relationship.
These factors determine the type of leader behavior required as a complement if follower outcomes are to be maximized.
Personal characteristics of the employee.
These determine how the environment and leader behavior are interpreted.

Situational Leadership: Follower Readiness and Leader Behavior

Research evidence generally supports the logic underlying the path-goal theory. Overall, research finds that directive leadership leads to greater satisfaction when tasks are ambiguous or stressful than when they are highly structured and well laid out. Supportive leadership results in high employee performance and satisfaction when employees are performing structured tasks. Directive leadership is likely to be perceived as redundant among employees with high perceived ability or with considerable experience. Employees with an internal locus of control will be more satisfied with a participative style.

Another contingency theory is the Leader-Member Exchange Theory. The leader-member exchange (LMX) theory argues that because of time pressures, leaders establish a special relationship with a small group of their followers. These individuals make up the in-group—they are trusted, get a disproportionate amount of the leader's attention, and are more likely to receive special privileges.  The theory proposes that early in the history of the interaction between a leader and a given follower, the leader implicitly categorizes the follower as an "in" or an "out," and that relationship is relatively stable over time. How the leader chooses who falls into each category is unclear. The leader does the choosing based on the follower's characteristics. The theory and research surrounding it provide substantive evidence that leaders do differentiate among followers.

Furthermore, in 1973, Victor Vroom and Phillip Yetton developed a Leader-Participation Model. Recognizing that task structures have varying demands for routine and non-routine activities, these researchers argued that leader behavior must adjust to reflect the task structure.  The model was normative it provided a sequential set of rules that should be followed in determining the form and amount of participation in decision making, as determined by different types of situations. The model was a decision tree incorporating seven contingencies and five leadership styles. More recent work by Vroom and Arthur Jago revised this model. Retaining the same five alternative leadership styles but adds a set of problem types and expands the contingency variables to twelve.

The twelve contingency variables are listed in the accompanying slide deck summarize this discussion for the week. Research testing both the original and revised leader-participation models has been encouraging. Criticism has focused on variables that have been omitted and on the model's overall complexity. Other contingency theories demonstrate that stress, intelligence, and experience are important situational variables. The model is far too complicated for the typical manager to use regularly. Vroom and his associates have provided us with some specific, empirically-supported contingency variables that you should consider when choosing your leadership style.