CHAPTER 12

TRADITIONAL MODELS FOR UNDERSTANDING LEADERSHIP

Objectives:
After completing the chapter, the students will be able to:
 Characterize the nature of leadership;
 Trace the early approaches to leadership;
 Discuss the emergence of situational theories and models of leadership;
 Describe the LPC theory of leadership;
 Discuss the path-goal theory of leadership; and
 Describe Vroom’s decision tree approach to leadership.

The mystique of leadership makes it one of the most widely debated, studied,
and sought-after properties of organizational life. Managers talk about the
characteristics that make an effective leader and the importance of leadership to
organizational success, while organizational scientists have extensively studied
leadership and myriad related phenomena for decades. Paradoxically, however, while
leadership is among the most widely studied concepts in the entire field of
management, there remain many unanswered questions. Why, then, should we
continue to study leadership? First, leadership is of great practical importance to
organization. Second, in spite of many remaining mysteries, researchers have isolated
and verified some key variables that influence leadership effectiveness.
This chapter, the first of two devoted to leadership, introduces the fundamental
traditional models that are commonly used as a basis for understanding leadership. We
distinction between leadership and management. Then we turn to historical views of
leadership, focusing on the trait and behavioral approaches. Next, we examine three
contemporary leadership theories that have formed the basis for most leadership
research: the LPC theory developed by Fiedler, the path-goal theory, and Vroom’s
decision tree approach to leadership. In our next chapter we explore several
contemporary views of leadership.

THE NATURE OF LEADERSHIP

1|Page
 Because “leadership” is a term that is often used in everyday conversation, you
might assume that it has a common and used in accepted meaning. In fact, just the
opposite is true – like several other key organizational behavior terms such as
“personality” and “motivation”, “leadership” “leadership” is used in a variety of ways.
Thus, we first clarify its meaning as we use it in this book.

The Meaning of Leadership

We will define leadership in terms of both process and property. As a process,
leadership is the use of non-coercive influence to direct and coordinate the activities of
group members to meet a goal. As a property, leadership is the set of characteristics
attributed to those who are perceived to use such influence successfully. Influence a
common element of both perspectives, is the ability to affect the perceptions, beliefs,
attitudes, motivation, and/or behavior of others. From an organizational viewpoint,
leadership is vital because it has such a powerful influence on individual and group
behavior”. Moreover, because the goal toward which the group directs its efforts is often
the desired goal of the leader, it may or may not merit with organizational goals.
Leadership involves neither force nor coercion. A manager who relies solely on
force and formal authority to direct the behavior of subordinates is not exercising
leadership. Thus, as discussed more fully in the next section, a manager or supervisor
may or may not be a leader. It is also important to note that on one hand, a leader may
actually posses the characteristics attributed to him or her on the other, the leader may
merely be perceived as possessing them.

Leadership versus (U of C 8.167 as a preposition) Management

From these definitions, it should be clear that leadership and management are
related but they are not the same. A person can be a manager, a leader, both or
neither. Some of the basic distinction between the two are summarized in Table 12.1.
On the left side of the table are four elements that differentiate a management and a
leadership point of view. For example, when executing plans, managers focus on
monitoring results, comparing them with goals, and correcting deviations. In contrast,
the leader focuses on energizing people to overcome bureaucratic hurdles to help reach
goals.
To further underscores the differences, consider the various roles that might
typify managers and leaders in a hospital setting. The chief of staff of a large hospital is
clearly a manager by virtue of the position itself. At the same time, this individual may
not be respected or trusted by others and may have to rely solely on the authority
vested in the position to get people to do things. But an emergency room nurse with no
formal authority may be quite effective at taking charge of a chaotic situation and
directing others in how to deal with specific patients problems. Others in the emergency
room may respond because they trust the nurse judgment and have confidence in the
nurse’s decision-making skills.
And the head of paediatrics, supervising a staff of twenty other doctors, nurses,
and attendants, may also enjoy the staff’s complete respect, confidence, and trust. They
readily take her advice and follow directives without questions, and often go far beyond
what is necessary to help carry out the unit’s mission. Thus, being a manager does not
ensure that a person is also a leader – any given manager may or may not also be a
leader. Similarly, a leadership position can also be formal, as when someone appointed
to head a group has leadership qualities, or informal, as when a leader emerges from
the tasks of the group according to a consensus of the members. The chief of staff
describe earlier is a manager but not really a leader. The emergency room nurse is a
leader but not a manager. And the head of paediatrics is likely both.
Organization needs both management and leadership if they are to be effective.
For example, leadership is necessary to create and direct change and to help the
organization get through tough times. And management is necessary to achieve
coordination and systematic results and to handle administrative activities during times
of stability and predictability. Management in conjunction with leadership can help

2|Page
achieve planned orderly changed, and leadership in conjunction with management can
keep the organization properly aligned with its environment. In addition, managers and
leaders also play a major role in establishing the moral climate of the organization and
in determining the role of ethics in its culture. As you can see from the Ethics box on
next page entitled “When Does Leading Email Misleading” maintaining one’s ethical
balance while discharging other leadership duties can sometimes require an executive
to walk a fairly fine line.

TABLE 12.1 Kotler’s Distinction between Management and Leadership

Activity Management
CREATING AN AGENDA Planning and budgeting
Establishing steps and
timetables for achieving
needed results, allocating
the resources necessary to
make those needed results
to happen.
DEVELOPING A HUMAN Organizing and staffing
NETWORK FOR Establishing structure for
ACHIEVING THE accomplishing plan
AGENDA requirement, staffing that
structure with individuals,
delegating responsibility
and authority for carrying
out the plan providing
policies and procedures to
help guide people and
creating method or systems
to monitor implementation.
EXECUTING PLANS Controlling and Problem
solving Monitoring results
vs. plan in some detail,
identifying deviation, and
their planning and
organizing to solve these
problems.
OURCOMES Produces 0 degree of
predictability and order and
has the potential to
consistently produce major
results expected by various
stakeholders (e.g. for
customers always being on
time for stockholders, being
on budget.
Leadership
Planning and budgeting
Establishing steps and
timetables for achieving
needed results, allocating
the resources necessary to
make those needed results
to happen.
Aligning people
Communicating the
direction by words and
deeds to all those whose
cooperation may be needed
to influence the creation of
team and condition that
understand the vision and
strategies and accept their
validity.
Motivating and inspiring
Energizing people to
overcome major political
bureaucratic and resource
barriers to change by
satisfying very basic, but
other unfulfilled human
needs.
Produces change, often to
a dramatic degree and has
the potential to produce
extremely useful change
(e.g. new products that
customers want, new
approaches to labor
relations that help make a
firm more competitive.

3|Page
EARLY APPROACHES TO LEADERSHIP
Although leaders and leadership have profoundly influenced the course of human
events, careful scientific study of them began only about a century ago. Early studies
focused on the traits, or personal characteristics, of leaders. Later research shifted to
examine actual leader behavior.

Trait Approaches to Leadership

Lincoln, Napoleon, Joan of Arc, Hitler, and Gandhi are names that most of us
know quite well. Early researchers believed that leaders such as these had some
unique set of qualities or traits that distinguished them from their peers. Moreover, these
traits were presumed to be relatively stable and enduring. Following this trait approach
these researchers focused on identifying leadership traits, developing methods for
measuring them, and using the methods to select leaders.
Hundreds of studies guided by this research agenda were conducted during the
first several decades of the twentieth century. The earliest writers believed that
important leadership traits included intelligence, dominance, self-confidence, energy,
activity, and task-relevant knowledge. The results of subsequent studies gave rise to a
long list of additional traits. Unfortunately, the list quickly became so long that it lost any
semblance of practical value. In addition, the results of many studies were inconsistent.
For example, one early argument was that effective leaders such as Lincoln
tended to be taller than ineffective leaders. But critics were quick to point that Hitler and
Napoleon, both effective leaders in their own way, were not tall. Some writers have
even tried to relate leadership to such traits as body shape, astrological sign, or
handwriting patterns. The trait approach also had a significant theoretical problem in
that it could neither specify nor prove how presumed leadership traits are connected to
leadership per se. For these and other reasons, the trait approach was all but
abandoned several decades ago.
In recent years, however, the trait approach has received renewed in interest.
For example, some researchers have sought to reintroduce a limited set of traits into the
leadership literature. These traits include emotional intelligence, drive, motivation,
honesty and integrity, self-confidence, cognitive ability, knowledge of the business, and
charisma (which is discussed in Chapter 13). Some people even believe that biological
factors may play a role in leadership. Although it is too early to know whether these
traits have validity from a leadership perspective, it does appear that a serious and
scientific assessment of appropriate traits may further our understanding of the
leadership phenomenon.

Behavioral Approaches to Leadership

In the late 1940’s, most researchers began to shift away from the trait approach
and started leadership as an observable process or activity. The goal of the so-called
behavioral approach was to determine what behaviors are associated with effective
leadership. The researchers assumed that the behaviors of effective leaders would be
the same across all situations. The behavioral approach to the study of leadership
included the Michigan studies, the Ohio State studies, and the leadership grid.
The Michigan Studies. The Michigan leadership studies were a program of
research conducted at the University of Michigan. The goal of this work was to
determine the pattern of leadership behaviors that results in effective group
performance. From interviews with supervisors and subordinates of high- and low-
productivity groups in several organizations, the researchers collected and analyzed
descriptions of supervisory behavior to determine how effective supervisors differed
from ineffective ones. Two basic forms of leader behavior were identified – job-centered
and employee-centered – as shown in the top portion of Figure 12.1.

The Michigan Studies

4|Page
 Job- Centered Employee Centered
Leader Behavior Leader Behavior

The Ohio State Studies

Low Consideration High Cosideration
Behavior Behavior

Low Initiating High Initiating

Structure Behavior Structure Behavior

Figure 12.1 Early Behavioral Approaches to Leadership

Two of the first behavioral approaches to leadership were the Michigan and Ohio
State Studies. The results of the Michigan Studies suggested that there are two
fundamental types of leader-behavior, job-centered and employee-centered which were
presumed to be at opposite ends of a single continuum. The Ohio State Studies also
found two similar kinds of leadership behavior “consideration” and “initiating structure”
but this research suggested that these two types of behavior were actually independent
dimensions.
The leader who exhibits job-centered leader behavior pays close attention to,
performance. The leader’s primary concern is efficient completion of the task. The
leader who engages in employee-centered leader behavior attempts to build effective
work groups with high performance goals. The leader’s main concern is with high
performance, but that is to be achieved by paying attention to the human aspects of the
group. These two styles of leader behavior were presumed to be at opposite ends of a
single dimension. Thus, the Michigan researchers suggested that any given leader
could exhibit either job-centered or employee-centered leader behavior, but not both at
the same time. Moreover, they suggested that employee-centered leader behavior was
more likely to result in effective group performance than was job-centered leader
behavior.
The Ohio State Studies The Ohio State Leadership Studies were conducted
about the same time at the Michigan Studies (in the late 1940’s) and early 1950’s.
During this program of research, behavioral scientists at Ohio State University
developed a questionnaire, which they administered in both military and industrial
setting, to assess subordinates perceptions of their leader’s behavior. The Ohio State
studies identifies several forms of leader behavior but tended to focus on the two most
significant ones consideration and initiating structure.
When engaging in consideration behavior, the leader is concerned with the
subordinate’s feelings and respects subordinate’s ideas. The leader-subordinate
relationship is characterized by mutual trust, respect, and two-way communication.
When using initiating-structure behavior, on the other hand, the leader clearly defines
the leader-subordinate rules so that subordinates know what is expected of them. The

5|Page
leader also establishes channels of communication and determines the methods for
accomplishing the group’s task.
Unlike the employee-centered and job-centered leader behavior, consideration
and initiating structure were not thought to be on the same continuum. Instead as
shown in the bottom portion of the Figure 12.1, they were seen as independent
dimensions of the leader’s behavioral repertoire. As a result, a leader could exhibit high
initiating-structure behavior and high consideration. A leader could also exhibit high or
low levels of each behavior simultaneously. For example, a leader may clearly define
subordinates roles and expectations but exhibit little concern for their feelings.
Alternatively, she or he may be concerned about subordinate’s feelings but fail to define
roles and expectations clearly. But the leader might also demonstrate concern for
performance expectations and employee welfare simultaneously.
The Ohio State researchers also investigated the stability of leader behavior over
time. They found that a given individual’s leadership pattern appeared to change little as
long as the situations remain fairly constant. Another topic they looked at was the
combinations of leader behavior that were related to effectiveness. At first, they believed
that leaders who exhibit high levels of behaviors would be most effective. An early study
at International Harvester (now Navistar Corporation), however, found that employees
of supervisors who ranked high on initiating-structure behavior were higher performers
but also expressed lower levels of satisfaction. Conversely, employees of supervisors
who ranked high on consideration had lower performance ratings but also had fewer
absences from work. Later research showed that these conclusions were misleading
because the studies did not consider all the important variables. Nonetheless, however,
the Ohio State studies represented another important milestone in leadership research.

Leadership Grid Yet another behavioral approach to leadership is the

Leadership Grid (originally called the Managerial Grid). The Leadership Grid provides a
means for evaluating leadership styles and then training managers to move toward an
ideal style of behavior. The most current version of Leadership Grid is shown in Figure
12.2. The horizontal axis represents concern for production (similar to job-centered and
initiating-structure behavior), and the vertical axis represents concern for people (similar
to employee-centered and consideration behavior). Note the five extremes of leadership
both production and people, the 9,1 manager (authority-compliance) who is highly
concerned about production but exhibit little concern for people, the 1,9 manager
(country club management), who has the exact opposite concerns from the 9,1
manager, the 5,5 manager (middle of the road management) who maintains adequate
concern for both people and production, and the 9,9 manager (team management) who
exhibits maximum concern for both people and production.
According to this approach, the ideal style of leadership is 9,9. The developers of
this model thus created a multiphase training and development program to assist
Equicor, and other companies have used the Leadership Grid, and anecdotal evidence
seems to confirm its effectiveness in some settings. However, there is little published
scientific evidence regarding its true effectiveness and the extent to which it applies to
all managers and/or to all settings. Indeed, as we discuss next, such evidence is not
likely to actually exist.

THE EMERGENCE OF SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP MODELS

The leader-behavior theories have played an important role in the development

of more realistic, albeit more complex, approaches to leadership. In particular, they urge
us not to be so preoccupied with what properties may be possessed by leaders (the trait
approach), but to instead concentrate on what leaders actually. Unfortunately, these

6|Page
theories also make universal generic prescriptions about what constitutes effective
leadership. When we are dealing with complex social systems composed of complex
individuals, however, few if any relationships are consistently predictable, and certainly
no formula for success are infallible.
Yet, the behavior theorist tried to identify consistent relationships between leader
behaviors and employee responses in the hope of finding a dependable prescription for
effective leadership. As we might expect, they often failed. Other approaches to
understanding leadership were therefore needed. The catalyst for these new
approaches was the realization that although interpersonal and task-oriented
dimensions might be useful to describe the behavior of leaders, they were not useful for
predicting or prescribing it. The next step is the evolution of leadership theory was the
creation of situational models.
Situational models assume that appropriate leader behavior varies from one
situation to another. The goal of a situational theory, then, is to identify key situational
factors and to specify how they interact to determine appropriate leader behavior.
Before discussing the major situational theories, we first discuss an important early
model that in many ways laid the foundation for these theories. In a seminar article
about the decision-making process, Robert Tanembaun and Warren H. Schmidt
proposed a continuum of leadership behavior. Their model is much like the Michigan
framework. Besides purely job-centered behavior (or boss-centered behavior, as they
termed it and employee-centered (subordinate-centered) behavior, however, they
identified several intermediate behaviors that a manager might consider. These are
shown on the leadership continuum in figure 12.3.

Boss-centered Leadership

Use of Authority
by Manager
Area of Freedom
for Subordinates

Subordinate-centered Leadership

Manager Manger Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager

makes “sells” presentspresents presents defines permits
decision decision Ideas and
tentative problem, limits, subordinate
and invites decision gets asks to function
announces subject
questions suggestions group to within
it. Figure12.3 Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s
to Leadership
and makes Continuum
make limits
change. continuum
The Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s leadership decisionwas an important defined to
decision, precursor
modern situational approaches to leadership. The continuum identifies seven superior
levels of
leadership which range between the extremes of boos-centered and subordinate-
centered leadership.

This continuum of behavior ranges from the one extreme of having the manager
make the decisions alone to the other extreme of having the employee make the

7|Page
decision with minimal guidance from the leader. Each point on the continuum is
influenced by characteristics of the manager, subordinates, and the situation.
Managerial characteristics include the manager’s value system, confidence in
subordinates, personal inclinations, and feelings of security. Subordinate characteristics
include the subordinates need for independence, readiness to assume responsibility,
tolerance for ambiguity, interest in the problem, understanding the goals, knowledge,
experience, and expectation. Situational characteristics that affect decision-making
include the type of organization, group effectiveness, the problem itself, and time
pressure.
As we suggest in Chapter 3, the remarkable success of Apple Computer reflects
a complex interplay among several factors, including Steve Job’s leadership personality,
the eagerness of the employees to participate in the pursuit of his vision for the
company, and an organizational culture that values independence and creative input.
Hence, the leadership continuum acknowledge for the first time that leader
behavior represent a continuum rather than discrete extreme, and that various
characteristics and elements of any given situation would affect the success of any
given leadership style. Although this framework pointed out the importance of situational
factors, it was, however, only speculative. It remained for others to develop more
comprehensive and integrated theories. In the following sections, we describe three of
the most important and widely accepted situational theories of leadership, the LPC
theory, the path-goal theory and Vroom’s decision tree approach.

THE LPC THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

Fred Fiedler developed the LPC theory of leadership. The LPC theory attempts
to explain and reconcile both the leader's personality and the complexities of the
situation. (The theory was originally called the "contingency theory of leadership".
However, because this label has come to have generic connotations, new labels are
being used to avoid confusion. "LPC' stands for "least-preferred coworker," a concept
we explain later in this section.) The LPC theory contends that a leader's effectiveness
depends on the situation and, as a result, some leaders may be effective in one
situation or organization, but not in another. The theory also explains why this
discrepancy may occur and identifies leader situation matches that should result in
effective performance.

Tasks versus Relationship Motivation

Fiedler and his associates maintain that leadership effectiveness depends on the
match between the leader's personality and the situation. Fiedler devised special terms
to describe a leader's basic personality traits in relation to leadership. "task motivation"
versus "relationship motivation". He also conceptualized the situational context in terms
of its favorableness for the leader, ranging from highly favorable to highly unfavorable.
In some respects, the idea of task and relationship motivation resembles the
basic concepts identified in the behavioral approaches. Task motivation closely parallels
job-centered and initiating structure leader behavior, and relationship motivation is
similar to employee-centered and consideration leader behavior. A major difference,
however, is that Fiedler viewed task versus relationship motivation as being grounded in
personality in a way that is basically constant for any given leader.
The degree of task or relationship motivation in a given leader is measured by
the least-preferred coworkers (LPC) scale. The LPC instructions ask respondents (i.e.
leaders) to think of all the persons with whom they have worked and to then select their
least-preferred coworkers. Respondents then describe this coworker by making a series
of sixteen scales anchored at each end by a positive or negative quality or attribute. For
example, three of the items Fiedler uses in the LPC are:
___________________________________________________

8|Page
 Pleasant 87654321 Unpleasant
Inefficient 12345678 Efficient
Unfriendly 12345678 Friendly
___________________________________________________
The higher numbers on the scales are associated with positive evaluation of the
least-preferred coworkers. (Note that the higher scale numbers are associated with the
more favorable term and that some items reverse both the terms and scale values. The
latter feature forces the respondent to read the scales more carefully and to provide
more valid answers. Respondents who describe their least-preferred coworker in
relatively positive terms receive a high LPC score whereas those who use relatively
negative terms receive a low LPC score.
Fiedler assumed that these description actually say more about the leader than
about the least-preferred coworker. He believed, for example, that everyone's least
preferred coworker's likely to be equally "unpleasant" and that differences in the
descriptions actually reflect differences in personality traits among the leaders
responding to the LPC scale. Fiedler contended with interpersonal relations whereas
low-LPC leaders are more concerned with task-relevamt problems. Not surprisingly,
controversy has always sorrounded the LPC score, arguing that it may be an index of
bahavior, personality, or some other unknown factor. Indeed, the LPC measure - and its
interpretation-have long been among the most debated aspects of this theory.

Situational Favorableness
Fiedler also identified three factors that determine the favorableness of the
situation. In order of importance (from most to least important), these factors are leader-
member relations, task structure, and leader position power.
Leader-member relations refer to the personal relationship that exists between
subordinates and their leader. It is based on he extent to which subordinates must
respect, and have confidence in there leader, and vice versa. A high degree of mutual
trust, respect, and confidence obviously indicate good leader-member relations, and a
low degree indicates poor leader-member relations.
Task structure is the second most important determinants of situational
favorableness. A structured task in routine, simple, easily understood, and
unambiguous. The LPC theory presumes that structured tasks are more favorable
because the leader need not be closely involved in defining activities and can devote
time to other matters. On the other hand, an unstructured task is one that is non-routine,
ambiguous, and complex. Fiedler argues that this task is more unfavorable because the
leader must play a major role in guiding and directing the activities of subordinates.
Finally, leader position power is the power inherent in the leader's role itself. If
the leader has considerable power to assign work, reward and punish employees, and
recommend them for promotion, position power is high and favorable. If, however, the
leader must have job assignments approved by someone else, does not control rewards
and punishment, and has no voice in promotions, position power is low and
unfavorable, that is, many decisions are beyond the leader's control.

Leader Motivation and Situational Favorableness

Fiedler and his associates conducted numerous studies examining the
relationships among leader motivation, situational favorableness, and group
performance. Table 12.2 summarizes the results if these studies.
To begin interpreting the results, let's first examine the situational favorableness
dimensions shown in the table. The various combinations of these three dimensions
9|Page
 result in eight different situations, as arrayed across the first three lines of the table.
These situations in turn define a continuum ranging from very favorable to very
unfavorable situations from the leader's perspective. Favorableness is noted in the
fourth line of the table. For example, good relations, a structured task, and either high or
low position power result in a very favorable situation for the leader. But poor relations,
an unstructured task, and either high or low position power to create very unfavorable
conditions for the leader.
Table 12.2 The LPC Theory of Leadership

Leader-Member
Relations Good Poor
Task Structure Structured Unstructured Structured Unstructured
POSITION POWER High Low High Low High Low High Low
SITUATIONAL Very Moderately Very
FAVORABLE Favorable Favorable Unfavorable
RECOMMENDED - - -
LEADER Task-oriented Person-oriented Task-oriented
BEHAVIOR behavior behavior behavior

The table also identifies the leadership approach that is supposed to achieve
high bottom line of the table. A task-oriented leader is appropriate for very favorable as
well as very unfavorable situation. For example, the LPC theory predicts that if leader-
member relations are poor, the task is unstructured, and leader position power is low, a
task-oriented leader will be effective. It also predicts that a task-oriented leader will be
effective if a leader-member relations are good, the task is structured, and leader
position power is high. Finally, for situations of intermediate favorableness, the theory
suggests that a person-oriented leader will be more likely to achieve high group
performance.
Leader-Situation Match What happens if a person-oriented leader faces a
situation of intermediate favorableness. Fielder considers these leader-situation
combination to be "mismatches". Recall that a basic premise of his theory is that
leadership behavior is a personality trait. Thus, the mismatched leader cannot readily
adapt to the situation and achieve effectiveness. Fiedler contends that when a leader's
style and the situation do not match, the only available course of action is to change the
situation through "job engineering".
For example, Fiedler suggests that if a person-oriented leader ends up; in a
situation that is very unfavorable, the manager should attempt to improve matters by
spending more time with subordinates to improve leader-member relation and by laying
down rules and procedures to provide more task structure. Fiedler and his associates
have also developed a widely used training program for supervision on how to assess
situational favorableness and to change the situation, if necessary, to achieve a better
match. Wayerhaeuser and Boeing are among the firms that have experimented with
Fiedler's training program.
Evaluation and Implications
The validity of Fiedler's LPC theory has been heatedly because of the
inconsistency of the research results. Apparent shortcomings of the theory are that the
LPC measure lacks validity, the theory is not always supported by research and
Fiedler's assumption about the inflexibility of leader behaviour are unrealistic. The
theory itself, however, does represent an important contribution because it returned the

10 | P a g e
field to a study of the situation and explicitly considered the organizational context and
its role in effective leadership.

THE PATH-GOAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

Another important contingency approach to leadership is the path-goal theory.
Developed jointly by Martin Evans and Robert House, the path-goal theory focused on
the situation and leader behaviours rather than on fixed train of the leader. In contrast
to the LPC theory, the path-goal theory suggests that leaders can readily adapt to
different situations.

Basis Premises
The path-goal theory has its roots in the expectancy theory of motivation
discussed in Chapter 4. Recall that expectancy theory says that a person’s attitudes
and behaviours can be predicted from the degree to which the person believes job
performance will lead to various outcomes (expectancy) and the value of those
outcomes (valence) to the individual. The path-goal theory of leadership argues that
subordinates are motivated by their leader to the extent that the behaviours of that
leader influence their expectancies. In other words, the leader affects subordinates
performance by clarifying the behaviours (paths) that will lead to desired rewards
(goals). Ideally, of course, getting a reward in an organization depends on effective
performance. Path-goal theory also suggests that a leader may behave in different
situations.

Leader Behaviors
As figure 12.4 shows, path-goal theory identifies four kinds of leader behaviour
directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented. With directive leadership,
the leader lets subordinates know what is expected of them, gives specific guidance as
to how to accomplish tasks, schedules work to be done, and maintains definitive
standards of performance for subordinates. A leader exhibiting supportive leadership is
friendly and shows concern for subordinates status, well-being, and needs. With
participative leadership, the leader consults with subordinates about issues and takes
their suggestions into account before making a decision. Finally, achievement-oriented
leadership involves setting challenging goals, expecting subordinates to perform at their
highest level, and showing strong confidence that subordinates will put forth and
accomplish the goals. Unlike the LPC theory, path-goal theory assumes that leaders
can change their behaviour and exhibit any or all of these leadership styles. The theory
also predicts that the appropriate combination of leadership styles depends on
situational factors

Situational Factors
The path-goal theory proposes two types of situational factors that influence how
leaders behaviour relates to subordinate satisfaction, personal characteristics of the
subordinates and the characteristics of the environment (see Figure 12.4).
Two important personal characteristics of subordinates are locus of control and
perceived ability. Locus of control, discussed in Chapter 3, refers to the extent to which
individuals believe that what happens to them results from their own behaviour or from
external causes. Research indicates that individuals who attribute outcomes to their
own behaviour may be more satisfied with a participate leader (since they feel their own
efforts can make a difference whereas individuals who attribute outcomes to external
causes may respond more favourably to a directive leader (since they think their own
actions are of little consequence. Perceived ability pertains to how people view their
own ability with respect to the task. Employees who rate their own ability relatively low
may prefer directive leadership (since they think they need someone to show them how
to do the job).

11 | P a g e
 Important environmental characteristics are task structure, the formal authority
system, and the primary work group. The path-goal theory proposes that leader
behaviour will motivate subordinates if it helps them cope with environmental
uncertainly created by those characteristics. In some cases, however, certain forms of
leadership will be redundant, decreasing subordinate satisfaction. For example, when
task structure is high, directive leadership is less necessary and therefore less effective,
similarly, if the work group gives the individual plenty of social support, a supportive
leader will not be especially attractive. Thus, the extent to which leader behaviour
matches the people and environment in the situation is presumed to influence
subordinates’ motivation to perform.

Evaluation and Implications

The path-goal theory was designed to provide a general framework for
understanding how leader behaviour and situational factors influence subordinate
attitudes and behaviors. But the intention of the path-goal theorists was to stimulate
research on the theory’s major propositions, not to offer definitive answers. Researchers
hoped that a more fully developed, formal theory of leadership would emerge from
continued study. Further work actually has supported the theory’s major predictions
remain overly general and have not been fully refined and tested.

VROOM’S DECISION TREE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP

The third contemporary approach to leadership is Vroom’s decision tree
approach. The earliest version of the model was proposed by Victor Vroom and Philip
Yetton and later revised, and expanded by Vroom and Arthur Jago. Most recently,
Vroom has developed yet another refinement of the original model. Like the patch- goal
theory, this approach attempts to prescribe a leadership styles. But Vroom’s approach
concerns itself with only a single aspect of leader behavior subordinate participation in
decision making.

Leader Subordinate’s
Behaviors Motivation to Perform

Directive
Supportive
Participative
Achievement-Oriented

Situational
Factor

Personal Environmental
Characteristics of Characteristics
Subordinates
Task Structure
Locus of Control Authority System
Perceived Ability Work Group

FIGURE 12.4 The Path-Goal Theory of Leadership

12 | P a g e
 The path-goal theory of leadership specifies four kinds of leader behavior
directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented. Leaders are advised to
vary their behaviors in response to such situational factors as personal characteristics of
subordinates and environmental characteristics.

Basic Premises
Vroom’s decision tree approach assumes that the degree to which subordinates
should be encouraged to participate in decision making depends on the characteristics
of the situation. In other words, no one decision-making process is best for all situations.
After evaluating a variety of problem attributes (characteristics of the problem or
decision), the leader determines an appropriate decision style that specifies the amount
of subordinate participation.
Vroom’s current formulation suggests that managers should use one of two different
decision trees. To do so, the manager first assesses the situation in terms of several
factors. This assessment involves determining whether the given factor is “high” or “low”
for the decision that is to be made. For instance, the first factor is decision significance.
If the decision is extremely important and may have a major impact on the organization
(i.e. choosing a location for a new plant), its significance is high. But if the decision is
routine, and its consequences not terribly important (i.e., selecting a logo for the firm’s
softball team uniforms), its significance is low. The assessment guides the manager
through the paths of the decision tree to a recommended course of action. One decision
tree is to be used when the manager is primarily interested in making the decision on
the most timely basis possible; the other is to be used when time is less critical and the
manager is interested in helping subordinates to improve and develop their own
decision-making skills.

Evaluation and Implications

Because Vroom’s current approach is relatively new, it has not been fully
scientifically tested. The original model and its subsequent refinement, however,
attracted a great deal of attention and were generally supported by research. For
example, there is some support for the models are more effective than those who make
decisions consistent with it. The model therefore appears to be a tool that managers
can apply with some confidence in deciding how much subordinates should participate
in the decision-making process.

13 | P a g e
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1. How would you define “leadership”? Compare and contrast your definition with the
one given in this chapter.
2. Cite examples of managers who are not leaders and leaders who are not managers.
3. What makes them one and not the other? Also, cite examples of both formal and
informal leaders.
4. What traits do you think characterize successful leaders? Do you think the trait
approach has validity?
5. Recent evidence suggests that successful managers (defined by organizational rank
and salary) may indeed have some of the same traits originally ascribed to effective
leaders (such as an attractive appearance and relative height) How might the findings
be explained?
6. What other forms of leader behavior besides those cited in the chapter can you
identify?
7. How realistic do you think it is for managers to attempt to use Vroom’s decision tree
approach as prescribed?
8. Of the three major leadership theories – the LPC theory, the path-goal theory, and
Vroom’s decision tree approach- which is the most comprehensive? Which is the
narrowest? Which has the most practical value?

14 | P a g e
9. Do you agree or disagree with Fiedler’s assertion that leadership motivation is
basically a personality trait? Why?
10. Compare and contrast the LPC and path-goal theories of leadership. What are the
strength and weaknesses of each?

15 | P a g e