Executive Summary
This paper focuses on three theories of leadership namely trait theory, situational theory, and path-goal theory. The aim of this paper is to define the literature review on each theory and identify and analyze commonalities and differences between the three. The author finds that situational theory of Hersey & Blanchard and the path-goal theory (Kessler, 2013) fall under the same category of leadership: situational (Peretemode, 2012). Additionally, this paper will identify the best-fit theory that suits the style of the author is situational theory of leadership as well as identify that path-goal theory of leadership suits the style of the Guam Small Business Development Center program.
Keywords: trait, situational, path-goal, leadership
Word Count: 106
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 2
Introduction 4
Trait Theory 4
Situational Theory of Leadership 5
Path-Goal Theory of Leadership 6
Commonalities and Differences Between Theories 6
Best-Fit Theory for Author and Organization 8
Conclusion 9
References 11
Appendix A: Plagiarism Report 11
Appendix B: Certificate of Original Work 11
The Relationship Between and Application of
Trait Theory, Situational Theory, and Path-Goal Theory
Introduction
In recent years, the trait approach has made a resurgence through new interest of researchers focusing on transformational and charismatic leadership approaches (Northouse, 2010). It was first established that the trait approach was solely based on the leader; however, Stodgill’s findings identifies that the leader may possess the traits but those traits may not be relevant to the situation (Northouse, 2010). This resulted in the emergence of leadership behaviors and leadership situations theories (Northouse, 2010). In light of this information, other forms of leadership styles and approaches materialized such as situational theory which suggest a relation between leadership traits and behaviors and leader outcomes depend on the situation (Day & Antonakis, 2012) and path-goal theory which considers how effective leadership behaviors are in different situations (Kessler, 2013). This paper will identify some commonalities and differences, recognize applications of the theories based on studies conducted, and address the best fit style for the author and her organization.
Literature Review
Trait Theory
From the Great Man Theory evolves the Trait Theory, which states that only men born with leadership traits will be successful leaders (Coggins, 2016). The theory explicates what were these exact intrinsic traits of leadership. This theory came about from the thought that certain personality traits differentiated leaders from non-leaders (Day & Antonakis, 2012). Stodgill conducted a survey in 1974 compiled with his findings with a previous survey in 1948 and identifies ten of the best traits of a leader (Coggins, 2016). Stodgill (as cited in Coggins, 2016, para 5) identifies self-confidence and sense of personal identity, ability to influence other persons’ behavior, and drive to exercise initiative in social situations to name a few. Because scholars have classified a large number of traits, there is too much information to formally state that there is a set standard list of traits that one possesses to be an effective leader (Measom, n.d.). Another survey was conducted that names intelligence, dominance, and masculinity as leadership traits; however, these studies were conducted during a time where male leadership was predominant in business and society (Northouse, 2010).
Situational Theory of Leadership
Situational Theory of Leadership outlines four styles of leadership that leaders should utilize on their subordinates depending on the level of commitment and ability (Kessler, 2013). It is also based on the assumption that all employees actually would like to develop professionally (Drewinak & Karaszewski, n.d.). One of the first situational theory concepts to link leadership style to a situation was the least preferred co-worker model which identifies task-oriented leaders and relationship-oriented leaders and further identifies situations in where each of these type of leaders thrive (Cutler, 2014). However, due to factors such as its low flexibility to evolve with the changing work environment and lack of guidance on leadership performance improvement, it was therefore subsequently critiqued (Cutler, 2014). Though that model did not gain popular appeal, Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard, cultivate the theory and detect four styles as: directing which indicates high directing and low supporting; coaching which indicates high directing and high supporting; supporting which indicates low directing and high supporting; and delegating which indicates low directing and low supporting (as cited in Kessler, 2013, p 704). The leader under this theory would need to pinpoint the subordinates commitment and ability level (Lynch, 2015). This places significant emphasis on the leader’s competence to appropriately diagnose these levels (Lynch, 2015). Situational theory also has to take into account the level of maturity of the follower to determine which style to utilize (McCleskey, 2014). Based on Hersey-Blanchard’s leadership model, low maturity aligns with telling, medium maturity/limited skills align with selling, medium maturity/adequate skills aligns with participating, and high maturity aligns with delegating (Cutler, 2014, p 17).
Path-Goal Theory of Leadership
Under the concept that a leadership style is dependent on a situation, the Path-goal theory of leadership develops. This theory finds that leaders should adapt their behavior based on the challenges and opportunities in each situation (Cutler, 2014). Kessler (2013) further states that the principal function of this type of leadership should be indicative to the best behavior that facilitates the employees in the pursuit of their goals. Based on the theory, House expands on four behaviors: directive behavior which sets the structure and information on what is needed for the employee to set the path in order to achieve their individual goals; supportive behaviors which creates an atmosphere of support to increase employee confidence and lower stress and uncertainty; achievement-oriented behaviors which are aligned with maximizing employee performance; and participative behaviors which includes the employees’ input and making them apart of work-related decisions (as cited in Kessler, 2013, p 581). For example, a leader exhibiting directive behavior would explain to the employee their clearly defined role in the organization and what is expected of them. This provides clarity to the employee in meeting their goals daily, quarterly, or yearly. At the other end of the behavioral style, a leader who teams up employees in order to reach company goals or asks for their opinion regarding certain achievements encompasses participative behavior leadership (Kessler, 2013).
Commonalities and Differences Between Theories
Path-goal theory along with situational theory and least preferred co-worker model all suggest that effective leadership depends on the level of fit between the leader’s behavior and various factors in the particular situation (Kessler, 2013). Additionally, Peretomode (2012) identifies four commonalities but first distinguishes between contingency theory and situational theory. Based on Peretomode (2012), it is important to annotate that path-goal theory and Hersey & Blanchard’s situational theory fall under the category of situational leadership. That being said, Peretomode (2012) identifies that situational leadership theories are based on how the leader should behave or what actions to employ depending on how the follower behaves. Although they are categorized under the same classification, the difference between path-goal theory and situational theory is that situational the
ory is where the leader must adapt to the developmental level of the subordinates while path-goal focuses on the relationship between the leader and characteristics of the workplace setting and subordinates (Northouse, 2010). The path-goal relies heavily on employee motivation, which is derived from the expectancy theory that states that employees will be motivated to the work if they know they can accomplish the work (Northouse, 2010). Initially, what sets the trait approach apart is that it solely focuses on the leader and does not take the situation or other external factors into consideration (Northouse, 2010). On one hand, the type of leadership style to employ can be viewed from the trait leadership approach, but instead of individual traits or skills, the situational leadership styles is based on the activity between the leader and his or her followers (Drewinak & Karaszewski, n.d.). However, concepts of all three theories intrinsic traits, motivation and behavior, and situational factors come full circle into the transformational leadership approach (McCleskey, 2014).
Although the theories share commonalities and differences, depending on the type of organization, the employee backgrounds and views, and other factors, each leadership theory can work in some settings. Arvidsson, Johansson, Ek, and Akselsson (as cited in McCleskey, 2014, p 119) conducted a study using the situational theory framework with air traffic control employees. Based on previous research, it was thought that relation-oriented leadership was preferred over task-oriented leadership; however, in this case it was not (McCleskey, 2014). It showed that in this environment, a task-oriented leadership style providing information such as specifying tasks and procedures and clarifying expectations worked (McCleskey, 2014).
While some theories apply to some situations or settings, further training in the criticisms of these theories must be conducted to improve on their shortcomings. For example, the trait theory would not be beneficial for training; however, leaders and their employees can take personality assessments to identify their traits and find training and techniques that suit their personality in their work environment (Northouse, 2010). A criticism of situational leadership theories both situational theory and path-goal theory would be that there is no specific leadership style that could be effective universally and that behavioral or path-goal theories relies on nonfigurative leadership types that are hard to identify and therefore hard to align with the correct style (McCleskey, 2014). However, McCleskey (2014) does recommend that leaders should get training on skills and competency to develop these deficits.
Best-Fit Theory for Author and Organization
Based on the three theories explained above, the situational theory of leadership best fits the style of the author. Under the trait theory, it examines intrinsic traits that the leader possesses to be an effective leader. Even though the author possesses some of these traits does not mean it is being utilized to its potential to be an effective leader (Northouse, 2010). Furthermore, the idea that the theory is based solely on the leader and nothing more is a concept that the author disagrees based on the effectiveness of other leadership theories that incorporate other factors. The path-goal theory does not align well with the author’s ability to adapt her behavior. Knowing that the author is highly practical, the situational theory of leadership best suits her style. In the situational theory, the author notes that what works best for her is having standard guidelines to follow. Additionally, the author would not have to adapt based on analyzing the workplace and follower characteristics, which is a variable factor, but adapt based on the task at hand.
The best theory to apply to the Guam Small Business Development Center, which is a grant funded small business training and consulting program, is the path-goal theory of leadership based on the author’s experience and observations working in the organization for over three years. Under this program, the organization level is as follows: administrative assistant, business advisor, associate director, and network director. Due to the small number of employees the author notes the existing relationship between the leader and each employee. Therefore, the leader should adjust their behavior based on the employee’s pursuit of their goals. There are employees in the organization that need directive, supportive, and participative leadership styles, but the leader currently focuses on achievement-oriented style due to the milestone goals required by the National office. If the leader is able to adapt his behavior and identify the aligning workplace and follower characteristics, employee morale will increase and the program will be more effective in not only meeting the goals, but going beyond the standard.
Conclusion
To conclude, path-goal theory and situational theory derived from the curiosity of researchers who sought discrepancies with the trait theory. The trait theory solely identifies that leaders were born with certain traits that made them apart from nonleaders (Coggins, 2016). Situational theory and path-goal both advocate for adaptability dependent on the situation; however, situational is reliant on the task at hand while path-goal is reliant on the behavior and also takes into account employee motivation (Kessler, 2013; Cutler, 2014). When identifying the style that best suits a leader, the author recommends personality assessments, consideration of the organizational structure, behaviors, maturity, and skill level of followers, and challenges and opportunities of each situation. A perfect, effective leadership model does not exist based on the extensive research conducted throughout the years; however there are leadership styles that can aid a leader to continuously perfect the organization’s effectiveness.