Path-goal theory was under attack when I took some leadership classes in the early 1990s – so much so that I was surprised to see that Northouse (2016) presented it so prominently. Although path-goal theory had a strong theoretical backing in behaviorist psychology, empirical research was already starting to question its effectiveness, particularly with complex goals and large teams (C. Schriesheim & Glinow, 1977; J. F. Schriesheim & Schriesheim, 1980, p.). In fact, by the mid-1990s, researchers were beginning to argue that, despite having “potential” as a theory, “after almost 2-1/2 decades, we should be closer to realizing that ‘potential’ than we are now” (C. Schriesheim & Neider, 1996, p. 320). Today, the best-selling college psychology textbooks deal with path-goal theory as fairly irrelevant (Myers, 2011, 2014), and even mass-market books on leadership acknowledge that leadership via transactions between the leader and follower are unlikely to produce large-scale lasting results on complex tasks (Heath & Heath, 2010).
It seems that a lack of empirical research demonstrating a theory’s effectiveness, combined with an inability of the theory to address ambiguous complex tasks, combined with empirical research showing that applying the theory may decrease long-term effectiveness (Northouse, 2016) would be enough to sideline most theories. Yet, the theory is still powerful to attract the attention of TED presenters (Pink, 2009). Why won’t path-goal theory die?
I think the major reason that the theory still holds is that, despite the evidence questioning its universal applicability, it works in most leadership situations. However, the word most requires clarification. Dan Pink (2009) cites research demonstrating that, cross-culturally, rewards for behavior decreases creativity and innovation (Ariely, Gneezy, Loewenstein, & Mazar, 2009; Heyman & Ariely, 2004). I believe that these findings ring true for most of us – meaning most of the people who read books or take courses on leadership, pursue advance degrees, and listen to TED Talks. However, “most of us” in that context is not the same as “most of us” in terms of leadership situations.
In the U.S., “most of us” (60% according to (Kelly, 2015) do not have education above an associate degree, and nearly 2/3 think a college degree is not worth the investment. Nationally, about 1/5 of us work in blue-collar manufacturing jobs. Within the service sector, nearly 8% are food service workers (“Food service workers at a record high in US economy,” 2013). Expand that to a global “us” and less than 7% have university degrees (“Tertiary Education,” 2013) and 60% of “us” work in agriculture, and most of the rest work in factories, distribution, and low-level retail (Fouberg, Murphy, & Blij, 2012; Waugh, 2009).
My point is that, while Dan Pink’s call for leading through empowerment and intrinsic motivation is passionate, noble, articulate, and supported by some research, I wonder if it’s a call to all leaders, or only to the leaders of people whose basic needs have been met to the point that they can focus on things like belonging, esteem, and self-actualization (Maslow, 1943). Educational technology has the potential of reaching those marginalized by traditional structures, and we have the potential to be leaders in this field. However, to maximize that potential audience, it may be worthwhile exploring leadership methods that are effective for most of us (the assembly-line workers, the fast-food workers, the Walmart cleaners, the convenience store clerks) and most of us might be highly motivated by immediate rewards that meet basic needs.
References
Ariely, D., Gneezy, U., Loewenstein, G., & Mazar, N. (2009). Large Stakes and Big Mistakes. The Review of Economic Studies, 76(2), 451–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2009.00534.x
Food service workers at a record high in US economy: Record percent of Americans now employed in food services as a share of total employment coupled with peak food stamp usage. (2013). Retrieved February 6, 2018, from http://www.mybudget360.com/food-service-sector-us-economy-top-employment-sector-growth-economic-recovery/
Fouberg, E. H., Murphy, A. B., & Blij, H. J. de. (2012). Human Geography: People, Place, and Culture (10 edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2010). Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard (1st edition). New York: Crown Business.
Heyman, J., & Ariely, D. (2004). Effort for Payment: A Tale of Two Markets. Psychological Science, 15(11), 787–793. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00757.x
Kelly, A. (2015). The Neglected Majority: What Americans Without A College Degree Think About Higher Education, Part 1. Retrieved February 6, 2018, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/akelly/2015/04/28/the-neglected-majority-what-americans-without-a-college-degree-think-about-higher-education-part-1/
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.
Myers, D. G. (2011). Psychology, 10th Edition (10th edition). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
Myers, D. G. (2014). Myers’ Psychology for AP* (2 edition). Freeman/Worth.
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice, 7th Edition (7 edition). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Pink, D. (2009). The puzzle of motivation. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=rrkrvAUbU9Y
Schriesheim, C. A., & Neider, L. L. (1996). Path-goal leadership theory: The long and winding road. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 317–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90023-5
Schriesheim, C., & Glinow, M. A. V. (1977). The Path-Goal Theory of Leadership: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 20(3), 398–405. https://doi.org/10.2307/255413
Schriesheim, J. F., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1980). A Test of the Path-Goal Theory of Leadership and Some Suggested Directions for Future Research. Personnel Psychology, 33(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1980.tb02356.x
Tertiary Education. (2013). Retrieved February 6, 2018, from https://ourworldindata.org/tertiary-education
Waugh, D. (2009). Geography : an integrated approach. Nelson Thornes.
