Path Goal theory explained by Marion Erickson

1. Path-Goal Theory
By Marion Erickson

2. A description of the leadership theory
“Path-goal theory states that the leadership behaviors of formally
appointed superiors directly affect their subordinates and that subordinate
performance, motivation, and satisfaction can be increased by
subordinates' belief in their own capabilities, by clarifying paths toward
attainment” (Schaible-Brandon, S., & Muth, R., 2006). Path goal theory
suggest that leadership success can be increased:
• by offering rewards for achieving goals,
• by removing obstacles,
• by increasing opportunities essential for personal satisfaction.
Path-goal leadership suggests that “a leader's effectiveness is directly tied
to the ability and willingness of that leader to ensure a satisfying work
environment that provides rewards for achieving goals that are clearly
stated” (Schaible-Brandon, S., & Muth, R., 2006).

3. Any underlying beliefs or assumptions about
leadership or human nature that are apparent in
the theory
 This leadership theory suggests that top-down approach to leadership can be
improved if implemented in a way that increases efficiency.
 Insists that top-down leadership is the best way to improve the work environment
 This theory is born of the style and behavior theories of the 1950’s. This leadership
style suggests that humans need to be comfortable and motivated by rewards or
prizes to be efficient and effective (John Churchley, n.d)
 This leadership style suggests that things that are getting in the way of efficient
and effective production are negative to the work environment and need to be
changed, but like unclogging the toilet drain some jobs are just unpleasant.

4. A list of the main authors involved in the development of
the theory (include reference information) and the
approximate time period of its use and development
 Path goal theory was first published by Martin G. Evans in 1970. Evans published A Path-Goal Theory of
Leader Effectiveness, which House updated in 1996 (Schaible-Brandon, S., & Muth, R., 2006).
Robert J. House
Martin G. Evans
(International Leadership Association, 2021)
(Acedemia.edu, 2021)

5. Your analysis of the pros and cons of the theory,
especially as the theory might (or might not) apply to an
educational context
Pro’s
 Works to ensure workplace efficiency
 Helps to ensure employees frustrations with
tedious tasks are made simple
 Offers rewards to employees for finishing task
and goals (everyone loves prize)
 Considers how the workplace environment
impacts employee satisfaction
 Leadership style is friendly
Cons
 As much as ensuring efficiency and road blocks are not
in the way unions and other workplace complexities
could make this task difficult or unachievable
 Offering rewards could be a budgetary restriction
 Enhancing the workplace environment might result
other things in a school being overlooked
 It has been criticized that there is no framework for this
theory and so implementation can be ambiguous
(Schriesheim, C. A., & Neider, L. L., 1996)

6. References
 Acedemia.edu (2021) Martin G. Evens. [picture]
https://utoronto.academia.edu/MartinGEvans
 International Leadership Association (2021) Leadership Legacy Program. [picture]
http://www.ila-net.org/LeadershipLegacy/Robert_House.htm
 John Churchley (n.d) Introduction: What is Leadership? EDUC 5401 Principals and
Processes of Educational Leadership. Thompson Rivers University. [mp4]
(https://barabus.tru.ca/med/educ5401/educ5401_whatis.html
 Schaible-Brandon, S., & Muth, R. (2006). Path-goal leadership theory. In F. W. English
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational leadership and administration (Vol. 1, pp. 733-733).
SAGE Publications, Inc., https://www-doi-
org.prxy.lib.unbc.ca/10.4135/9781412939584.n420
 Schriesheim, C. A., & Neider, L. L. (1996). Path-goal leadership theory: The long and
winding road. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 317. https://doi-
org.prxy.lib.unbc.ca/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90023-5