House and mitchell path goal theory

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

LAW&~ Behcr~ior Viirirrhk ~

Reward variety

Diagnose differences in desired rewards

Upward influence

‘VI{ E/

Charismatic behavior

Articulates goal

Competent

Supportive

Trustworthy

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

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 +

4% .I E,

+ + + +

+ + + + A

+

+ + + +

EV,

+

I

+ + + .I.

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

Supporrivelconsiderate

Participative

Upward influence

Contingent reward

Contingent punishment

Other

Task structure, repetitiveness, scope

Role Ambiguity

Task Independence

Autonomy

Group or Organization size or cohesion

Subordinate expertise or education

Upward influence

Leader expertise

Other

Dupendunr Vcrriahl~s

Performance

Turnover

Supervisor satisfaction

Work satisfaction

Extrinsic satisfaction

intrinsic satisfaction

Overall satisfaction

Effort

El

F ‘?

Role ambiguity

Role conflict

Other- ________~ .~_..

NOTE

29

27

4

I I I 7

20

5

3

2

3

2

I 1 8

13 3 IO 9 5 7 7 5 4

2

6

I s -

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.