USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Reply to each post with 150-200 words.
include 2 references per post.
Post #1
Path-Goal theory proposes that in order for leaders to be effective, they must “engage in behaviors that complement subordinates’ environments and abilities in a manner that compensates for deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction and individual and work unit performance” (House, 1996, p. 1).
Using Table 6.1 Path-Goal Theory (Northouse, 2016, p. 121), I have identified that my leadership challenge is that I have a leadership behavior that does not necessarily align with the subordinate and task characteristics of my staff members. Taking the Path-Goal Leadership Questionnaire (Northouse, 2016, p. 133), has further confirmed that my leadership behavior is generally directive and achievement oriented. My scores for supportive behavior fell at the top level of low, and participative aspects were extremely low.
Most of the tasks that we perform in accounting are repetitive and mundane. We have monthly cycles of accounting, reconciling and reporting. Challenges come up when we have system glitches, special projects, or implement new processes. While my strong achievement oriented behavior would benefit these ambiguous, challenging, and complex situations, they are rare (Northouse, 2016, p. 121). Therefore, in alignment with the characteristics of the task we do daily, the supportive leadership behavior would be most beneficial. Just as I identified in my post regarding Situational Leadership, generally my staff need a coaching and supporting leadership style. Supportive leadership is nurturing and helps to maintain the motivation of followers (Northouse, 2016, p. 120). My goal then is to improve “psychological security” for followers by providing a supporting relationship (House, 1996, p. 340). Using a supportive leadership style will assist in “building camaraderie, respect, trust, and liking” (Northouse, 2016, p. 72).
References:
House, R.J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7(1), 323-352
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
ISBN: 978-1-4833-1753-3
Post #2
In my leadership challenge I am tasked to change the process which will change the culture within the adult division of the probation department and get PO’s to do something that they don’t normally do, which is to facilitate classes.
Because I may come across resistance to this change I am tasked to make, I think a participative approach to my challenge would work. The reason for that is if I include the team in being a part of creating this new program, include them in developing the schedule on when to teach and who will be teaching, the team is invested because they were a part of this process. This is also a way for getting the team to buy into this because they were part of the planning. They will have no one to blame if anything went wrong because they were involved on the planning. As stated in Northouse, 2016, p. 121-122, “participation gives greater clarity to how certain paths lead to certain goals, and helps followers learn what leads to what”.
My score for the Path Goal Questionnaire was 27 on participative style which is my preferred leadership style which is the style that I would use for my challenge.
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Post #3
Use Table 6.1 Path-Goal Theory: How it Works in Northouse to assess the subordinate and task characteristics of your leadership challenge, and determine which of the four leader behaviors is predicted to be most effective? Compare this with your score on Path-Goal Questionnaire at the end of chapter 6. According to this theory, is your preferred leadership style predicted to be effective in this situation or not? f not, what style would be more effective?
In my leadership challenge one of my subordinates was dogmatic and authoritarian and one was basically adrift. Northouse states, “theoretically, the path-goal approach suggests that leaders need to choose a leadership style that best fits the needs of followers and the work they are doing.” (2016, p.121) While my natural leadership style (unless I’m dealing with my children) is non-directive, in this particular challenge which was complex and the individual I was dealing with was hostile and defensive I approached him in my natural participative style, but quickly found that I needed to adjust to directive. This was less comfortable for me, but got the desired message across loud and clear. As for the employee who was a bit clueless, I also used a directive style because he was untrained and needed specific guidance.
My scores on the questionnaire were low directive, common supportive, high participative, and common achievement-oriented. These results were not a surprise to me. I did have a bit of a hindsight epiphany about my style of leadership and how it may have left some of my employees feeling disconnected. The nature of the college program that I ran was fairly repetitive with the same general education courses running term after term. I can see how my low-common supportive style may have not been enough to ensure that my team felt valued and affiliated with the program as a whole. What on my end was confidence and trust in my faculty and staff may have been perceived as aloofness or even lack of care for them as individuals. Something for me to keep in mind as a leader in the future.
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Los Angeles, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
