3.2 The Path-Goal Theory
The path-goal model of leadership was introduced by Martin Evans and Robert House. Path-goal theory says that a leader can motivate subordinates by influencing their expectations. Leaders can motivate sub-ordinates by making clear what they have to do to get the reward they desire. The path-goal model assumes that leaders can change their style or behavior to meet the demands of a particular situation. This model identifies four kinds of leader behavior: directive, supportive, participative and achievement-oriented. According to this model managers can adjust their behavior to include any four kinds of leadership behavior mentioned above. For instance, while leading a new group of sub-ordinates, the leader may be directive in giving guidance and instructions to them. He may also adopt supportive behavior to encourage group cohesiveness, to look after their needs and ensuring that they get the rewards and benefits. As the group becomes more familiar with the task and as new problems are taken into consideration, the leader may use participative behavior by which he can participate with employees in making decisions and take their suggestions as well. Finally, the leader may use achievement-oriented behavior to encourage continued high performance of sub-ordinates.
Environmental characteristics are factors, which are beyond the control of sub ordinates. It includes task structure, the primary work group and the formal authority system. For instance, when structure is high, directive leadership is less effective than when structure is low. Sub-ordinates do not usually need their boss to repeatedly tell them how to do a routine job. According to the path-goal theory, these environmental factors can create uncertainty for employees. A leader who helps employees reduce such uncertainty can motivate them.
Leaders do not always have control over environmental factors, but the theory emphasizes that leaders can use the control they want, to adjust the environment and to motivate sub-ordinates.
3.3 The Vroom-Yetton-Jago Theory
The Vroom-Yetton-Jago model of leadership was first introduced by Vroom and Yetton in 1973 and was revised by Vroom and Jago in 1988, This model has a much less focus than the path-goal theory. It helps a leader to determine the extent, to which employees should participate in the decision-making processes,
The VYJ theory argues that decision-effectiveness is best judged by the quality of decision and by the acceptance of that decision on the part of employees. Decision acceptance is the extent to which employees accept and are loyal to their decisions.
To maximize decision effectiveness, the VYJ theory suggests that leaders adopt one of five decision-making leaderships. The appropriate leadership depends on the situation. As summarized in the following table, there are two autocratic types of leadership, which are AI and All, two consultative types of leadership, which are CI and CII and the other one is group GII.
Decision-Making Styles in the VYJ model
| Decision Style |
Description |
| AI | Manager makes the decision alone. |
| AII | Manager asks for information from subordinates but makes (he decision alone. Sub- ordinates may or may mil be informed about what the situation is. |
| CI | Manager shares the situation with individual subordinates and asks for information and evaluation. Subordinates do not meet as a group and the manager alone makes the decision. |
| C II | Manager and subordinates meet as a group to discuss the situation but the manager makes the decision. |
| G II | Manager and subordinates meet as a group to discuss the situation and the group makes the decision. |
A = Autocratic; C= Consultative; G = Group
The situation is defined by a series of questions about the characteristics or attributes of the problem under consideration. To address the questions, the leader uses one of the four decisions. Two of them are used when the problem affects the entire group. For example, a decision about the facilities to be given to employees in a new office affects the entire group and the other two are appropriate when the decision affects a single individual only. e.g. a new office for that individual only.
Moreover, one of each is to be used when the decision has to be made quickly because of some urgency and the others arc to be used when the decision can be made more slowly and the leaders wants to use the opportunity to develop subordinates’ decision-making abilities.
The VYJ model was criticized because of its complexity. Computer software has been developed to aid leaders in defining the situation, answering the questions about the problem attributes and developing a strategy for decision-making participation.
Although the VYJ model is too new to have been thoroughly tested, evidence so far indicates that this model can help leaders to choose the most effective way to include the sub-ordinates in decision-making.
Other Contingency Approaches
In addition to these three major leadership theories, there are other contingency models or theories developed in recent years. The other models of leadership are as follows:
- Vertical Dyad Linkage Model: This model stresses the fact that leaders actually have different kinds of working relationship with different subordinates. Each manager-subordinate relationship represents one vertical dyad. The Vertical Dyad Linkage model suggests that leaders establish special working relationships with some subordinates based on some combination of respect, trust and liking. These people constitute the ‘in-group’. Other subordinates remain in the ‘out-group’s, who receive less of leader’s time and attention. Those in the ‘in-group’ receive more of the manager’s time and attention and are better performers. Research shows that people in the ‘in-group’ are more productive and more satisfied with their work than ‘out group’ members.
- Life Cycle Model: The life cycle model suggests-that appropriate leader behavior depends on the maturity of the followers. In this context, maturity includes motivation, competence and experience. The model suggests that as followers become more mature, the leader needs to move gradually from high to low task orientation. Simultaneously, the leader’s employee-oriented behavior should start low, increase at a moderate rate and then decline again. Many leaders are familiar with the life cycle theory because it is both simple and logical. However, it has received little scientific support from researchers.