Academic-Capital

Leaders often seek to influence the structures of their organizations in ways that produce specific meaningful activities. In many cases, this induced structure can come through additional definition of which paths/behaviors lead to which type of rewards. Other times it requires an overhaul of the entire system so that the right paths and pressures can be created. Professional and skilled labor level employees often interpret such induced structures differently based upon their current level of role ambiguity. Robert House’s path-goal theory helps define when and where induced leadership structure will be beneficial.  Path-Goal Theory is derived from the roots of expectancy theory which indicates that actions are determined by a person’s assessment of the possible outcomes and the satisfactions derived from these outcomes. As a person perceives the possible outcomes and sets upon the obtainment of such an outcome they weigh and judge the satisfaction of that possible outcome in

Path-goal leadership is a process of helping employees find appropriate paths to meet goals that align with organizational objectives. Leaders who have the ability to inspire their employees and develop these mental connections between performance, paths, and rewards can expect to see higher levels of organizational achievement. Yet defining the right strategies without the right leadership does little if employees are not empowered to act and progress to new levels.  Path-goal theory has two main objectives such as a) identifying roles and behaviors of effective leaders and b) exploring situational contingencies that modify those behaviors (Barling et. al, 2011). In essence, the leader’s behavior becomes a primer to the situational context in which employees exist. When the leadership behavior is effective and the situational contingencies are positive and in alignment there should be a corresponding increase in performance.   The theory is often further defined into sit