Читать книгу Transnational Organized Crime and Gangs - Robert M. Brzenchek - Страница 13

The path goal theory was developed by M.J. Evans in 1970. It was modified by R. J. House the following year. The theory was proposed to aid in our understanding of leader and subordinate relations about goal attainment. The path goal theory touted motivation as the sole source of goal achievement between a leader and his or her subordinate. House determined that a leader’s role is to accurately gauge the mood and psyche of his or her subordinates and use this understanding to manipulate the subordinate’s motivation to perform tasks that meet organizational expectations. In other words, a leader must account for personality variations and adjust to the disposition of subordinates. He determined the ultimate means to intensifying the motivation of subordinates was based on the leader’s ability to clarify goals, identify facile paths to goals, and enhance satisfaction via external rewards. In continued studies, R. J. House and T. R. Mitchell observed three orientations exhibited by subordinates: personal satisfaction, expectations of their leaders, and expectations regarding performance outcomes. After recognizing these orientations, they were able to identify four comparable leadership styles that offer a solution to what they observed. The four styles are: directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented. A directive leader clarifies expectations by offering detailed guidance to subordinates for them to meet the desired expectations and comply with performance standards per organizational guidelines. The directive style is the best leadership approach when subordinates are unfamiliar with standard operating procedures. It is also appropriate in situations that require a swift legalistic and or bureaucratic response. Conversely, seasoned subordinates will likely find the directive style aggressive, controlling, and oppressive. In fact, the only time the directive style of leadership is preferred when managing longtime employees is when their specific position lacks structure. A supportive leader is responsive to his or her subordinates. The friendly ambience a supportive leader creates intrinsically motivates subordinates. A key characteristic of a supportive leader is public recognition. Supportive leaders gleefully acknowledge every subordinates’ favorable actions and dole out awards based on clear expectations. This style of leadership exemplifies respect for subordinates by treating everyone equal and displaying genuine concern for their well-being. Reardon and Rowe said that supportive leaders “learn by observing outcomes and how others react to their decisions.” Per the path goal theoretical model, a supportive leadership style is most appropriate when leading subordinates who demonstrate lack motivation and demonstrate some insecurity in their aptness to satisfactorily preform job functions. The participative leader takes has a tenancy to consult with subordinates and accept suggestions prior to resolving managerial matters. Participative leaders involve subordinates in planning, decision-making, and execution phases of the overall goals. This style allows subordinates the freedom to take ownership whereby they become self-directed and offer collective innovative input. The participative style is appropriate when guiding subordinates with a history of poor decision-making and disregard for written procedures. Leaders who adopt an achievement mode set challenging goals for their subordinates. Moreover, they encourage subordinates to complete tasks far above satisfactory levels. The achievement-oriented leader continuously seeks improvement in performance and is confident that the subordinates will contently master the challenges in front of him. Each of the four path goal styles can be exercised by leaders in any combination with various subordinates and within different organizational environments and situations. Path goal theory is an important framework for the given dissertation on rationale for predictive criminal gang prevention programs because these new programs will require innovative team efforts from law enforcement. If law enforcement leaders pattern their leadership styles in ways that foster creativity from subordinates by considering individual backgrounds, personalities, and unique characteristics, the level of intrinsic motivation will allow departments to sustain new programs, multiyear.

Research on the path goal theory includes dependent variables that are comprised of a range of subordinate outcomes. This is based on two assumptions: One, it assumes that behavior is consistently situational, and two, it assumes all leaders have the capacity to adjust their style at will. The path goal theory fails to shed light on the effects leaders have on their subordinates. R. J. House and G. Dessler stated that the theory’s intention was to identify the “precise psychological mechanisms underlying the effects of leaders on others”; nothing more. Ultimately, the path goal theory proposes that if a subordinate receives guidance and appropriate supports from his/her superior regarding work functions, the leader’s behavior is considered acceptable and can lead to a motivated, satisfied subordinate.

Moreover, the leader’s behavior will be viewed as acceptable only when subordinates perceive it as an either an immediate or future source of job satisfaction. By extension, supervisory support is positively correlated with organizational allegiance and dedication. To put it differently, subordinates form an emotional attachment to the organization that is directly correlated to the relationship they have with direct supervisors. There is no correlation between effective allegiance to organizations and a subordinate’s professional performance. Therefore, it seems possible that if there is a significant positive relationship between the dependent variables of path goal theory, namely: intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction, satisfaction with superior, performance satisfaction, and overall job satisfaction, then a subordinate’s commitment to his/her leader may be a significant dependent variable with the implication of increased obligation to successfully bond with leadership, forming a satisfactory collaboration.