Developing Productive Employee Behavior through Path-Goal Theory

Leaders often seek to influence the structures of their organizations in ways that produce specific meaningful activities. In many cases, this induced structure can come through additional definition of which paths/behaviors lead to which type of rewards. Other times it requires an overhaul of the entire system so that the right paths and pressures can be created. Professional and skilled labor level employees often interpret such induced structures differently based upon their current level of role ambiguity. Robert House’s path-goal theory helps define when and where induced leadership structure will be beneficial. 

Path-Goal Theory is derived from the roots of expectancy theory which indicates that actions are determined by a person’s assessment of the possible outcomes and the satisfactions derived from these outcomes. As a person perceives the possible outcomes and sets upon the obtainment of such an outcome they weigh and judge the satisfaction of that possible outcome in order to determine their motivational level and potential behavior. 

Expectancy theory is rooted in a subjective experience based in the persons perception of the possible outcomes and the feelings that person has toward those outcomes. What is important to one person may not be what is important to another. Yet despite these differences, cultures place values on particular outcomes and this can influence what a person sees as the possible outcome and the personal value of its attainment. For example, a worker from China and the U.S. may have different goals based in their cultural vantage points. 

In workplace situations, the leader has influence over both the structure and the job design. When intrinsically motivated behavior results in extrinsic rewards it can lead to greater motivation. Moving up in an organization allows one to master more skills and offers opportunities to expand upon the rewards available. The types of rewards an entry level worker and a senior administrator may receive are inherently defined by the organizational structure and the leader’s perception of comparative worth of their actions. 

This level of influence, and potential rewards, are based within the trust the employee has earned in terms of their abilities, position, and authority. Those employees who have mastered certain skills over their lifetimes have higher comparative worth thereby putting them into a position where they can have more selection over worthwhile rewards. The gaining of position and its possibilities is an external motivating force that when matched with intrinsic motivation can be a potent mix. 

Robert House’s research hypothesized the following:

• Leadership induced structure improves path instrumentality by reducing ambiguity.
• Leaders influence the subjective values groups assign to outcomes.
• Leadership induced structure will have different impacts on whether or not subordinates see the tasks as positive or negative as well as clear or ambiguous. 

House found a relationship between satisfaction, induced structure and higher level professional jobs. These jobs typically come with ambiguity and it isn’t always clear what employees need to do in order to ensure they receive rewards. When the leader implements a level of structure these ambiguous jobs become more defined and in the end raise the level of effort on defined paths. It is this collective effort that promotes work unit performance.

In the skilled labor realm, findings were more inconclusive. At the blue collar level where jobs are already defined and rewards are associated with particular tasks new structures by leaders were often resented. This may be one of the reasons why clearly defined union jobs have developed a level of resistance and immunity to changes proposed by new leaders. To change the nature of tasks and scope of work could lead to new methods of reward obtainment but would require adjustments in the predefined and often legally protected workplace structure. 

House’s path-goal work does open up some new possibilities for organizations with skilled labor that will require more knowledge based skills to stay competitive. Where jobs become increasingly ambiguous the need for leadership direction and structure will become more important in order to maintain momentum on specific goals. It will be this structure and direction that create paths of least resistance whereby employees will more likely choose those productive paths to reach their personal goals. Leaders will need to define what is expected, provide the path, and continue to adjust the skill requirements of jobs to stay competitive. Where personal expectancies and paths meet one would hope to find organizational success.

House, R. (1971) A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative science quarterly, 16 (3). 

You may read the full report by signing up for free HERE

Expectancy-Value Theory: Connecting Expectations to Rewards

As employees scramble over each other in an attempt to achieve the next promotion, or trinket of acknowledgement, it is important to understand precisely how their expectations lead to motivation. Expectancy-Value Theory is one way of looking at how employees value the behavioral options available to them.  In this theory, management should tie behavior and reward closely together if there is an expectation that employees will be motivated and productive.  Management has an ethical opportunity to ensure proper returns on investments and progressive use of human capital in order to fulfill their function.

The concepts of valence and expectancy make up the bulk of the Expectancy-Value Theory.  In general, employees believe that when they put forth a specific amount of effort there should be an appropriate reward that is offered. If the expected energy and the value of the reward are not in alignment it will be difficult for management to solicit certain types of motivated behavior.

Valence and expectancies make up the bulk of Vroom's Value-Expectancy Theory and are further defined as the following: 

1.) Valence: The desired outcome of working at a particular level.

2.) Expectancies: The subjective expectation that such action will lead to a particular reward.

Vroom defines valence as, "the affective orientation toward particular outcomes" (1964, pp. 15). Those positive outcomes an employee desires to achieve are called positively valent while those things which an employee desires to avoid are negatively valent. It does not matter much what the true worth of these positive or negative factors are but only that they have a subjective perceptual value to employees.

It is not enough for a person to think in terms of the value of objectives but also the likelihood of achieving those objectives. For example, if an employee believes there is a high likelihood of achieve a particular objective after a defined amount of effort is put forth motivation is more likely. If this association of effort and reward is lower, motivation is less likely. Such expectancies are often denoted in numbers and range from .00 (low) to 1.0 (high).

In general, employees continually scan their environment in an effort to judge the value combinations of potential valences and expectancies. Alternatives come and go and employees do not always maintain orderings throughout their time of employment (Behling & Starke, 1973). The ordering of valences and expectancies can be seen as Sum (EijVj).  Someone who prefers a specific expectancy and valence combination is said to prefer Sum(EijVj)1 over Sum(EijVj)2  This would mean they prefer a particular course of action based upon the value of expectancy and the likelihood of its valence. 

We might be able to break this into an appropriate example. An employee has an option to put effort towards 1.) obtain a raise; or 2.) obtain a promotion without a raise. Option 1 could be denoted as Sum(EijVj)1 and option 2 can be denoted as Sum(EijVj)2. The employee makes the decision that the particular value combination of option 1 is worth more than option 2. The employee is most likely to put his effort toward the higher income.

Researchers can often use these short denotations to help them categorize and keep track of certain options over others. It is such understandings and choices, from the perspective of the employee, that often leads to an approach in workplace behavior based upon the value ordering of these particular choices.  As employees move through these choices they will often ignore or forget older orderings as they become less available.

. . . most decisions are made in sequential fashion. Thus, having chosen y over X and then, z over y, one is typically committed to z and may not even compare it with x, which has already been eliminated. Furthermore, in many choice situations the eliminated alternative is no longer available, so there is no way of finding out whether our preferences are transitive or not. These considerations suggest that in actual decisions, as well as in laboratory experiments, people are likely to overlook their own intransitivities. Transitivity, however, is one of the basic and the most compelling principles of rational behavior (Tversky, 47, p. 45).

Unfortunately, many employees cannot formalize these values in their minds and this can cause confusion. At times it is beneficial for managers to ensure that the actions that lead to rewards are clearly defined for employees in order to help them make these values more solidified. This is one of the reasons why workplace expectations and the rewards should be transparent and clear for employees in order to build develop appropriate behavioral options.

Furthermore, understanding what employees value in terms of potential outcomes within the workplace will lead to a greater understanding of the motivational potentials of employee behavior. It should be kept in mind that management should ensure that the performance expectations are solidified through formal corporate literature, management behavior, and compensation structures. When there is confusion between the expectancies and their potential outcomes this lowers the total likelihood that certain behaviors will be exhibited. Poor performance is a direct result of poor management communication.

Behling, O. & Starke, F. (1973). The postulates of expectancy theory. Academy of Management Journal, 16 (3).

Tversky. A. (1969) Intransitivity of Preferences. Psychological Review, 76, pp.31-48.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: Wiiey.