R.J.

HOUSE’S “A PATH-GOAL THEORY OF

LEADER EFFECTIVENESS”

Martin C. Evans*
University of Toronto

1964 was a wonderful year for organizational behavior. Three influential micro
organization theory books (Argyris, 1964; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoeck, & Rosenthal,
1964; Vroom, 1964) were published, as well as one that recast our view of organization
structuring (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1964). Vroom’s articulation of expectancy theory as a
general model of job choice and motivation inspired a large number of researchers to test
the theory (e.g., Hackman & Porter, 1968), to criticize the theory (Mitchell, 1974), and to
elaborate on the theory.
It is in the elaboration mode that House’s path-goal theory makes its contribution. The
path-goal theory of leadership had its genesis, as did one other influential theory of
leadership (Katz, Maccoby, & Morse, 1950) in the work of the Institute for Social Research
at the University of Michigan. In 1957, Georgopoulos, Mahoney, and Jones published their
seminal test of the expectancy theory of motivation. By 1964, with the publication of
Vroom’s Work and Motivation, the theory had been broadened to encompass a whole
series of individual choices (of a job, of an organization, and of how hard to work) in
organizational settings. During this period, (Kahn, 1958) argued that the effects of leaders
on subordinates’ performance and satisfaction might be mediated through effects upon the
subordinate’s motivation.
Once Vroom had articulated a viable, testable theory of motivation, it was clear that the
next sensible step was to examine whether important organizational factors (leadership,
structure, job design) might have an impact on employee behavior through a motivational
mediator.
Evans (1968, 1970) presented a theoretical exposition of the ways in which this
mediation might take place for leadership behavior (consideration and initiating structure)

* Direct all correspondence to: Professor M.G. Evans, University of Toronto, Faculty of Management, 246 Bloor
Street West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada MSS lV4. r-mud: evans@fmgmt.mgmt.utoronto.ca

Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 305-309.

Copyright 0 1996 by JAI Press Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISSN: 1048.9843
306 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 7 No. 3 1996

and provided for a test of the theory (as well as of the underlying expectancy theory of
motivation).
In 1971, House extended the theory by examining the contingencies under which
leader behavior might affect each of the elements of motivation; and this position was
elaborated and extended by House and Mitchell (1974) and Evans (1979) {See also
Indvick, 1986).

Table 1
Predictions From Path-Goal Theory

Behcr~ior
LAW&~ Viirirrhk ‘VI{ E/ 4% E,.I EV,
~
Reward variety +
Diagnose differences in desired rewards
Upward influence I

Charismatic behavior
Articulates goal + +
Competent + +
Supportive + +
Trustworthy + .I.

Accurate feedback +
Timely. clear. specific feedback +
Discrm~inate between good and poor performance +
Courage to communicate feedback +
Accurate attributions about the causes of subordinate’s A

bchuvior
Participation in goal settmg and measures
C[)nlmunic~te contingencies
Reward and punish co~ltin~et~t on pcrf[~r~~luncc
Recommend contingent organizationa rewards
Stimulate contingent reward by group and by outsiders,
supportive climate
Visible performance +
Group rewards
Articulate the value of the organization
Set difficult goals
Directive
Participative
Show confidence
Coaching and training
Clarify paths
Participative +
Directive +
Planning and or~uni~in~ +
Supportive + +
Selection and Placement
House’s Path-Goal Theory 307

Donald Hebb once wrote that a good theory was one that stays around long enough to
help one get to a better theory. The path-goal theory of leadership has fulfilled that
criterion well. From the initial development by Evans in 1968, the theory has developed
into a contingency form (House, 1971) and into a general diagnostic model (Kerr &
Jermier, 1978). Once path-goal theory had focused upon transactional calculative forms
of leadership (the impact on subordinates’ expectancies and, to a lesser extent, the
provision of valued rewards), the gap in terms of the leader’s role in need arousal became
clear. This, together with Bums (1978) work on transformational leadership led to the
development of better theories: the charismatic and transformational theories of
leadership (House, 1977; Bass, 1985); these take path-goal theory to its logical
transcendental limit.
The development of the path-goal theory of leadership was a triumph of the theory
building process. An examination of the components of the underlying motivation model
led House to question what aspects of leader behavior might affect these components; this
led him to his breaking with the traditional dimensions of initiation of structure and
consideration to the richer set of: directive, supportive, achievement-oriented, and
participative (House & Mitchell, 1974). A more recent elaboration Evans (1987) of
relevant leader behaviors is provided in Table 1.
The second contribution of this theory building process was the second question that
House asked: What alternative ways could be provided for the individual to be high in the
components of motivation? Unlike Fiedler’s (1967) contingency theory which was driven
by empiricism, House was led to the contingency aspects of his theory by both
inconsistent empirical findings and theoretical insight. Aspects of the job, organization,
and individual could affect the individual’s motivation and preferences for leader
behaviors.

TESTING OF THE THEORY

Although the theory presented specifically articulated the role of motivation as the
mediator between leader behavior and subordinate satisfaction and performance, most tests
of path-goal theory have focused on the direct effects, under different contingencies, of
leader behavior on satisfaction and performance. These tests have been very restrictive in
the kinds of leader behaviors examined, the dependent variables studied, and the moderator
variables examined. Summary data from the bulk of the published research testing path-
goal theory are presented in Table 2 (Evans, 1987).
These data indicate how restricted our efforts have been. Nearly all the studies have
focused on two leader behaviors (instrumental [29] and supportive [25]) as they interacted
with task structure [20] to affect performance [ 151 or, more likely, satisfaction [26].
The number of studies that have examined components of the motivation theories is
small [4]. The number of studies that have included individual characteristics of the
subordinate as moderators is minimal [4]; and only two have looked at joint task and
individual characteristics as moderators (Schuler, 1976; Weed, Mitchell, & Smyser, 1976).
In the light of the absence of studies testing the critical motivational hypotheses of the
theory, it is hard to argue that the theory has undergone reasonable testing. It has not. As
we honour this classic citation, it may be time to re-examine the level of support for the
theory.
308 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 7 No. 3 1996

Table 2
Variables Used in Tests of Path-Goal Theory
._______~.
Leader Rehn~iors
Instrumental/direclive 29
Supporrivelconsiderate 27
Participative 4
Upward influence I
Contingent reward I
Contingent punishment I
Other 7

Task structure, repetitiveness, scope 20

Role Ambiguity 5
Task Independence 3
Autonomy 2
Group or Organization size or cohesion 3
Subordinate expertise or education 2
Upward influence I
Leader expertise 1
Other 8
Dupendunr Vcrriahl~s

Performance 13
Turnover 3
Supervisor satisfaction IO
Work satisfaction 9
Extrinsic satisfaction 5
intrinsic satisfaction 7
Overall satisfaction 7
Effort 5
El 4
F‘? 2
Role ambiguity 6
Role conflict I
Other- - s
________~ .~_..

NOTE
1. Details of the research surveyed can be obtained from the author.

REFERENCES
Argyris, C. (1964). i~r~~p~~so~~ competence and orgunizafio~~~ e@ectiveness. Homewo~, IL:
Irwin.
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership andperjformance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
House’s Path-Goal Theory 309

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Evans, M.G. (1968). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship. Unpublished
Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Evans, M.G. (1970). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship.
Organizational Behavior and Human Pe$ormance, S,277-298.
Evans, M.G. (1979). Leadership. In S. Kerr (Ed.), Organizational behavior. Columbus, OH: Grid
Publishing.
Evans, M.G. (1987). Fiihrungstheorien-Weg-ziel-theorie. In A. Kieser, G. Reber, & R. Wunderer
(Eds.), Handworterbuch der Ftihrung. Stuttgart, Germany: C.E. Poeschel Verlag.
Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leader effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Georgopoulos, B.S., Mahoney, T.M., & Jones, L.W. (1957). A path-goal approach to productivity.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 41,3&i-353.
Hackman, J.R., & Porter, L.W. (1968). Expectancy theory predictions of work expectancies.
Organizational Behavior and Human Petiormance, 3,417-426.
House, R.J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quaterly, 16,
321-338.
House, R.J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.),
Leadership: the cutting edge. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R.J., & Mitchell, T.R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary
Business, 9, 8 l-97.
Indvick, J. (1986). Path-goal theory of leadership: a meta-analysis. In Proceedings of the Academy of
Management Meetings, 46, 189-192.
Kahn, R.L. (1958). Human relations on the shop floor. In E.M. Hugh-Jones (Ed.), Human relations
and modern management (pp. 43-74). Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books.
Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoeck, J.D., & Rosenthal, R.A. (1964). Organizntional
stress: studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.
Katz, D., Maccoby, N., & Morse, N. (1950). Productivity, supervision, and morale in an ofice
situation. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J.M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement.
Organizational Behavior and Human Peqormance, 22,375-403.
Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. (1964). Managing differentiation and integration in organizations.
Cambridge, MA: Division of Research, Harvard Business School.
Mitchell, T.R. (1974) Expectancy models of job satisfaction, occupational preference, and effort: a
theoretical, methodological and empirical appraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1053-1077.
Schuler, R. (1976). Conflicting findings in path-goal theory leadership research: a suggested
interpretation. Unpublished manuscript, Cleveland State University.
Weed, S., Mitchell, T.R., & Smyser, C. (1976). A test of House’s path-goal theory of leadership in an
organizational setting. Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington.
Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.