1

Module 4: Path-Goal and Leader-Member Exchange Leadership

John W. Nordberg

Arizona State University

Dr. Paula Veach

July 26, 2020

 2

Abstract

In this paper we will describe the differences between the Path-Goal Leadership Theory

and the Leader-Member Exchange Theory. There will be a description of a case study relating to

each of the theories. At the end there will be an analysis given to my personal experiences by

using questionnaires in each theory.

Keywords: Path-Goal, Leader-Member Exchange, LMX, Leadership

 3

Module 4: Path-Goal and Leader-Member Exchange Leadership

When it comes to leaders interacting with their followers, two leadership theories stand

out. The path-goal theory focuses on how leaders motivate their followers to accomplish the

team goals. Not to be confused with the situational approach, path-goal is about ensuring a

motivated team through the characteristics of a team to the leader’s behavior, rather than

adapting the leader’s behavior to the team’s ability. Leader-member exchange on the other hand

is focused on a dyadic system between a leader and their followers. This theory approaches

teams as individuals rather than an entire team.

Path-Goal Leadership and Leader-Member Exchange Leadership

The path-goal leadership theory and the leader-member exchange leadership theory

approach leadership from two different directions. The path-goal theory approaches leadership

by removing obstacles for the team through defining goals, clarifying the path forward, and

providing support (Northouse, 2016). It also focuses on a leader’s behaviors as they relate to

their follower’s characteristics and the follower’s tasks, identifying a method to motivate the

followers effectively toward the team goal. The leader-member exchange theory on the other

hand focuses purely on the individual relationship between a leader and a single follower or

group on the team. This dyadic relationship between the leader and a follower is analyzed

individually between each follower in a team to determine the possibility of bias, and the

importance of clear communication between the leader and follower.

While the path-goal theory and the leader-member exchange theory have different

approaches to leadership, they share a few aspects as well. Both leadership theories approach the

idea that followers play a role in the leadership approach. Traits, behavior, skills, and situation all

involved what a leader themselves is responsible for. These two theories focus on group theory in
 4

that the interactions and relationships are the important and fluid aspects that must be addressed

for effective leadership. They are also both quite practical when it comes to applications. In a

real-world scenario, individuals must be accounted for, the team itself must be accounted for, a

leader without a team is not leading anything.

Case Study 6.1

In the case study about Art, Bob, and Carol, the three shift supervisors operate a team

across three shifts and have different approaches when it comes to their leadership. In this

example, Art and Bob seems less effective than Carol in their leadership ability because Carol’s

approach matches her employee’s motivations. The first shift led by Art has tasks that are

repetitive and mundane to the point of being boring to the team. They require a more supportive

leadership behavior such as Bob’s style. The second shift led by Bob has tasks that are complex

and at times unclear due to setup work changing often for the next shift. These tasks require a

more directive approach like that of Art’s style. The third shift seems problematic and

unstructured in its tasks, whether that is from the second shift not setting them up correctly or the

nature of the work itself is unclear. Carol has a participative approach and removes roadblocks

for her team, allowing them to get their work done relatively unhindered. It does not seem like

any leadership style changes are necessary at Brako, only for Art and Bob to switch shifts. Art’s

directive approach would be perfect for the fluctuations that happen during the second shift, and

Bob’s supportive and friendly nature would be perfect for the mundane first shift.

Case Study 7.1

In the case study about Carly Peters and the advertising agency, Carly operates four

teams with associate creative directors that report directly to them, Jack, Terri, Julie, and Sarah.

On initial glances, this department is rather lopsided. Jack is the only associate that would be in
 5

the “in-group” whereas Terri, Julie, and Sarah would be considered the “out-group”. Although it

seems as though Carly’s relationship with the four groups is indeed productive to the company, it

could be more efficient by some restructuring. All the teams are interchangeable when it comes

to task assignments, this makes them more competitive rather than cooperative. If the teams were

restructured to something along the lines of “Interior Showcase Team” for Jack, “Exterior

Showcase Team” for Terri, “Contract Team” for Julie, and “General Advertising Team” for

Sarah, it may alleviate some of the inherent bias in how the team leads feel. Terri is upset that

Carly favors Jack’s team, so they just need to split the team so that they do not compete for the

same tasks, they can be showcased equally. Julie has a quality team, but is typically not

contracted outside of overflow, so the team just needs a specific directive to rely on. In the

reading it is implied that substitutions or assistance come from Terri’s team. If Terri’s team is on

a more specific directive, this opens Julie’s team to contribute through these roles. Sarah is

comfortable coasting and would likely take any jobs that the two main teams could not cover.

This restructuring would likely eliminate the frustrated nature of Terri and Julie.

Path-Goal Leadership Scores

Style Score Interpretation

Directive 28 High
Supportive 28 Average
Participative 29 High
Achievement-oriented 22 Above Average

Taken from my experiences as a Starbucks Shift Supervisor, it is apparent that a

somewhat jaded approach has taken root in my leadership style when it comes to path-goal. The

two scores that show this are the lower supportive score, and the lower achievement-oriented

score. In recent time over the past few years, Complacency has set in at times and it has become

difficult to see the daily goals as being achievable, or even worth of achieving at times. This is
 6

clearly reflected in the achievement-oriented category. The lower supportive score was rather

shocking, as I am usually viewed as a ‘barista’s shift’ rather than a ‘manager’s shift’ by others,

having a tendency to look out for the best interest of my team rather than the demands of either

the district manager or store manager as a priority. This score is likely due to my idea of

‘support’ being indirect through task assistance, rather than direct through motivation and team

member morale support.

Leader-Member Exchange Self-Analysis

Regarding the leader-member exchange theory, I scored a 27 (High) on my relationship

to my leader, in this case my store manager, and a 32 (Very High) on my relationship with one of

our baristas. I would place myself in the “in-group” category with both the store manager and the

barista. Part of this comes with tenure, part of this comes from having an adaptive mindset when

it comes to work related instances. The manager knows that I have the store’s best interest in

mind, but never at the expense of the team. The team knows I have their best interest at heart, but

they still need to get the work done. Neither result here is surprising as it matches my description

as a leader from others over the last seven years.

Overall, the social aspect becomes apparent with path-goal theory and leader-member

exchange theory. It is important to note that leaders need their followers just as much as their

followers need them. Leadership approaches would be incomplete if they did not address this

notion. Both of these theories do a wonderful job of moving the research on leadership in the

right direction, but there is still a great distance to go, and it is up to our future leaders (and their

teams) to get us there.

 7

References

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.