The case presents a usual problem of leadership style and employee motivation. The case presents how a more restrained leadership style can de-motivate a good performer like Bob from becoming dissatisfied with work. In this case, we see the problem was that of employee leader relationship. Clearly, the overall problem as presented in the case is that of leadership style, empowerment, and job satisfaction of employees. In order to evaluate these problems as presented in the case we discuss the issue in the light of path-goal theory (House, Path Goal Theory of Leadership: Lessons, Legacy, and Reformulated Theory). In evaluating the case, we use other related concepts from Organization Behavior. The lists of the used concepts are provided below:
- Citizenship behavior
- Good performer – Bob engaged in citizenship behavior, performed deftly all duties falling in his job description, did not engage in counterproductive behavior
- Organizational Commitment – Bob remained committed to the organization – cost based commitment / continuance commitment i.e. commitment for he saw a good future in the travel industry
- Work Values that give Job satisfaction, dissatisfaction , dissatisfied with supervision i.e. Supervision satisfaction (Supervision want – Supervision have)
- Job Characteristics Theory
- Work stress – adapting to stress cycle
- Motivation – self efficacy – Maslow’s Hierarchy, expectancy theory
- Big 5 personality Traits describing the personalities of Bob and George
- Empathy and leadership
A positive leader member relationship is a vital affecter of healthy workplace environment (House, Path Goal Theory of Leadership: Lessons, Legacy, and Reformulated Theory). We analyze the case in light of path-goal theory how the leadership styles of the two leaders, George and Beverly, and how they influenced the attitude of Bob. Leadership is an essential element that motivates employees and increases job satisfaction (House and Mitchel). Using this theory, we define the problem as has been presented in the case. Bob as a subordinate was extremely hard-working, responsive, self-motivated, and responsible till the time he was being supervised by Beverly. But when George was made his direct supervisor Bob started having problems. Clearly, there was a problem of leadership style of George which made Bob dissatisfied. Given this situation we will analyze the leadership styles of Beverly and George and then analyze how their style of managing differed which was the source of George’s dissatisfaction.
Before an analysis of the case is presented, a clear understanding of the theory is required. Path-goal theory reflects a didactic relationship between leader and member. It is concerned with direct relationship between formal supervisor and subordinate in their daily functions (House). The theory concentrates on explaining how the relationship between formally appointed supervisors affects the motivation and job satisfaction of subordinates. The theory states that:
“Leader behavior is motivational, i.e., increases effort, to the extent that (1) such behavior makes satisfaction of subordinate’s needs contingent on effective performance and (2) such behavior complements the environment of subordinates by providing coaching, guidance, support, and rewards necessary for effective performance.” (House and Mitchel 84)
So the basic notion of path-goal theory is that superiors who are in an authoritative position to influence the environment in which the subordinates work and provide such an indication through their behavior of the subordinates that the goals set for them to achieve if attained will fetch them rewards to do so. As there are different types of leader behavior such as directive path-goal clarifying, supportive, participative and achievement oriented leader behavior (House).
With the above background of path-goal theory, the problem as posed in the case can be presented. Bob was a good performer of work and he did exceedingly well with the added responsibility and free reign provided by Beverly. But as George took over as his direct supervisor, he started having problems with the authoritarian (Gastil) and directive leadership style of George. The case opens with a stressed Bob expressing his frustration in front of Beverly the COO of the organization. The problems in the case can be segregated in different sub-problems:
- Bob’s dissatisfaction with his present supervisor i.e. George
- George’s personality effecting his leadership style
- Problem of motivating Bob
Given these problems, we will first try to understand the motivating factors that helped Bob to become a star performer when he was supervised by Beverly. As the case suggested Beverly was extremely happy with Bob’s abilities and instantly saw that he had the potential of delivering more than what he was responsible. So she provided him with ample of freedom to do what he wanted to. As the case suggests Bob had a degree in management science but still he stayed with the organization as he saw growth opportunity in the industry. Thus, we see that Bob was committed to the organization. And his commitment to the organization was continuance commitment which stressed that the commitment that arises in individual out of fear of a cost. In Bob’s case, the cost was the opportunity cost of a lucrative growth opportunity. So when Beverly provided him the opportunity to handle more challenging duties he was completely motivated. And so he started taking interest in other duties other than that was his job specifications. This showed in Bob’s attitude towards work when he was promoted to the small accounts department initially when he did not have enough job responsibility: “Bob didn’t become too involved with supervising the large and somewhat unreliable part-time workforce who, though many were in sales and on commission, seemed to spend a lot of time fooling around; nor did he try to make any changes to the haphazard office systems” (The Great Post-It Massacre). But when Beverly gave him more responsibility Bob started taking interest in everything from training, recruitment to cleaning: “He took virtually complete charge of the office, and even supervised the cleaning and updating of files.” (The Great Post-It Massacre).
The reason for Bob’s good performance was his satisfaction with his supervisor Beverly. As theory suggests that when there is a mismatch in the supervisor, an individual wants and the supervisor one gets in reality, there arises dissatisfaction. Beverly understood the motivating triggers for bob. She realized that with Bob’s potential it is extremely essential to provide authority to him and trust him with his job. He was responsible and needed support and not authoritative directions. So analyzing Bob’s motivation factors in Maslow’s’ hierarchy we see that he needed high performance needs and high psychological needs to get motivated to work better. As motivation has a very strong influence on job satisfaction it became imperative that Bob needed to be motivated to work better and be more committed to job and organization.
Beverly’s leadership style when analyzed using the path-0goal theory showed that she showed supportive leadership behavior. This implies “a leadership behavior that provides psychological support for subordinates” (House, p. 340). She facilitated in his work without being intrusive, which implies that she was achievement oriented non-authoritarian leader. Her leadership style emphasized an element of democratic leader who are essentially task-oriented but do not supervise their subordinates too closely (Gastil). As the case suggested that “Beverly’s hands-off attitude and delegation of many of the responsibilities of her job to Bob made the job challenging.” (The Great Post-It Massacre). This gave Bob more confidence and opportunity to manage his subordinates. Beverly motivated Bob by Job enlargement and training. Beverly initiative to train Bob to be a better and more productive employee was seen in the following statement she made to Bob:
“”Take courses,” she encouraged him. “If you need to take a course during the day, get one of your employees to cover the office while you’re not here; if that isn’t possible, shift your calls over to our voicemail system, and leave a message that people can talk to me if there’s an emergency. Really, there aren’t many calls that are that critical that they can’t wait an hour or two for a call back.”” (The Great Post-It Massacre).
Consequently, Bob’s expectations from a supervisor were based on his perception of a supervisor like Beverly. He as a result when George became Bob’s supervisor he started having adjustment problems with him. The main reasons were seen in George’s directive style of delegating work: “George would spell out even the tiniest details of how work should be done” (The Great Post-It Massacre). Bob was not used to such work delegations. The problem was primarily in George’s personality and his leadership style. George as a leader failed to realize that Bob was a responsible employee and had handled these responsibilities deftly earlier. As the path-goal theory suggests “ the higher the degree of the subordinate’s self-perceived ability relative to task demands, the less subordinates will view