Environments

How can leaders create conditions for high performance?

Andy Weeger

Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences

Learning objectives

After completing this unit, you will be able to:

1. Explain Path-Goal Theory and how leaders clarify the path to follower goal achievement
2. Compare extrinsic and intrinsic motivation using Self-Determination Theory’s need framework
3. Describe engaging leadership and how it operationalises SDT’s basic psychological needs
4. Contrast engaging and disengaging leadership and their effects on work engagement

Latticework check-in

Opening reflection

Which mental models are at play when we think about motivation?

Consider: Incentive structures — how do rewards and punishments shape follower behavior? And feedback loops — how does engagement create performance which reinforces engagement?

Path-goal theory

A path to what?

Figure 1: Dilbert comic strip on goal setting

Discussion

What have you learned about the path-goal theory?

What is the essence of the theory and
what classes of leader behavior does it specify?

This discussion checks homework completion. Students should be able to articulate that the theory is about leaders adapting their behavior to complement follower abilities and environmental conditions. Encourage them to name at least three of the seven behavior classes before the formal introduction.

Opening remarks

Leaders must guide and support their followers along the path to achieving their goals (House, 1996).

A leader is “one or more people who selects, equips, trains, and influences one or more follower(s) who have diverse gifts, abilities, and skills and focuses the follower(s) to the organization’s mission and objectives causing the follower(s) to willingly and enthusiastically expend spiritual, emotional, and physical energy in a concerted coordinated effort to achieve the organizational mission and objectives” (Winston & Patterson, 2006, p. 8).

Path-goal theory emphasizes that leaders need to clarify the paths to goals, remove obstacles, and provide necessary support to help followers reach their objectives efficiently. It highlights the importance of adapting leadership behaviors to suit the needs of followers and the situation they are working in. Ultimately, the theory reminds leaders that their primary role is to coach and guide followers towards goal achievement by selecting behaviors that best fit followers’ needs and the working environment.

Path-goal clarifying behaviors

The path-goal theory assumes that under conditions role and task demands that are ambiguous and intrinsically satisfying, goal-oriented behavior by superiors is helpful and instrumental to task performance.

Leaders who are goal-oriented must clarify the following things:

• subordinates performance goals,
• the means by which they can effectively carry out tasks,
• the standards by which their performance will be judged,
• expectancies that others have of them and how to respond appropriately, and
• how to use rewards and punishment in an intelligent manner, contingent on performance.

Main propositions

Leaders’ behavior complements subordinates’ environments and abilities and leaders’ path-goal clarifying behavior adapts to different situations.

Leaders’ behavior complements subordinates’ environments and abilities — effective leaders engage in behaviors that align with and support their subordinates’ environments and abilities. The higher the degree of subordinates self-perceived ability relative to task demands, the less subordinates will view path-goal clarifying behavior as acceptable (motivational) (House, 1996).

Leaders’ path-goal clarifying behavior adapts to different situations — effective leaders adjust their behavior based on the specific circumstances, tasks (e.g., ambiguity), and characteristics of their followers (e.g., preference for independence). This adaptability ensures that leaders can effectively guide and motivate their subordinates towards achieving goals (House, 1996).

Leader behavior classes

Achievement-oriented,
work facilitation/ supportive,
interaction facilitation,
group oriented decision process,
representation and networking,
value-based, and shared leadership

Leadership behavior classes refers to types of actions and conduct that leaders incorporate into their management styles in order to effectively lead their teams, motivate them, and achieve their goals (House, 1996).

Achievement-oriented leader behavior

sets challenging goals, emphasize excellence, and demonstrate confidence in employees’ abilities.

Work facilitation/supportive leader behavior

plans, schedules, organizes, and coordinates the work; provides mentoring, coaching, counseling, and feedback to assist employees in developing their skills.

Interaction facilitation

collaboratively removes obstacles that prevent interaction, including dispute resolution, facilitation of communication, and listening to all voices.

Group oriented decision process

focus on decisions that affect group dynamics and production and on increasing acceptance of such decisions.

Representation and networking

address the need of leaders to network and actively represent the function of the work unit (e.g., to establish the legitimacy of the work unit)

Value-based leader behavior

helps establish extraordinary follower commitment by appealing to values and sentiments held dear by subordinates (requires an ideological goal)

Shared leadership

shares responsibility for leadership to increase unit cohesiveness (functions best in an interdependent environment)

Group work

Think about situations where you have either led or been led, whether formally or informally. Analyse how these situations can be characterised and explain why they were or weren’t effective.

Take about 10 minutes for reflection and discussion with your neighbour(s).

From path-goal to motivation

Bridging the theories

Path-goal theory tells leaders what to clarify — goals, means, standards, expectancies, and rewards. But how do you create the conditions where followers are intrinsically motivated to walk the path?

Self-Determination Theory and engaging leadership address exactly this: the psychological mechanisms that turn external guidance into internal drive.

Expectancy theory

Before we explore intrinsic motivation, a brief look at expectancy theory — a complementary lens on motivation.

Vroom (1964) proposed that motivation is a function of three beliefs:

• Expectancy — “If I try, can I perform?” (effort → performance)
• Instrumentality — “If I perform, will I be rewarded?” (performance → outcome)
• Valence — “Do I value the reward?” (outcome attractiveness)

Motivation = Expectancy × Instrumentality × Valence

Expectancy theory connects naturally to path-goal theory: a leader who clarifies goals and removes obstacles is directly increasing followers’ expectancy beliefs (“I can do this”). A leader who links performance to meaningful outcomes is increasing instrumentality. And a leader who understands what followers value can ensure that rewards have high valence.

However, expectancy theory primarily explains extrinsic motivation — motivation driven by external outcomes. What about the deeper drive that comes from the work itself? This is where Self-Determination Theory enters.

Self-Determination Theory

Three basic psychological needs

Self-Determination Theory [SDT; Deci & Ryan (2000)] proposes that humans have three basic psychological needs that, when satisfied, fuel intrinsic motivation and well-being:

• Autonomy — the need to feel volitional and self-directed, to experience choice and psychological freedom in one’s actions
• Competence — the need to feel effective and capable, to master challenges and experience a sense of growth
• Relatedness — the need to feel connected to others, to experience belonging, care, and mutual respect

SDT distinguishes between different types of motivation along a continuum from extrinsic to intrinsic:

• External regulation — behavior driven by external rewards or punishments (“I do it because I’ll be paid”)
• Introjected regulation — behavior driven by internal pressure like guilt or ego (“I do it because I’d feel bad if I didn’t”)
• Identified regulation — behavior driven by personal importance (“I do it because it matters to me”)
• Intrinsic motivation — behavior driven by inherent interest and enjoyment (“I do it because I find it fascinating”)

As motivation moves along this continuum from external to intrinsic, it becomes more autonomous, more sustained, and more associated with well-being and performance. Leaders play a critical role in creating environments that support this internalization process.

SDT in the workplace

Why does SDT matter for leaders?

When needs are satisfied:

• Greater intrinsic motivation
• Higher quality performance
• More creativity and innovation
• Stronger well-being and resilience
• Lower turnover intention

When needs are thwarted:

• Reliance on external incentives
• Compliance without commitment
• Disengagement and burnout
• Higher absenteeism and turnover
• Resistance to change

Consider common leadership practices through the SDT lens:

• Micromanagement thwarts autonomy — when every decision must be approved, followers lose the sense of psychological freedom that fuels intrinsic motivation.
• Unchallenging work thwarts competence — when tasks are trivial or repetitive, followers cannot experience the mastery that drives engagement.
• Isolation and competition thwart relatedness — when team members are pitted against each other or work in silos, the sense of belonging erodes.

Conversely, leaders who delegate meaningful responsibility (autonomy), provide stretch assignments with support (competence), and build genuine team connections (relatedness) create the conditions for sustained high performance.

From SDT to engaging leadership

SDT provides the motivational logic; engaging leadership provides the leadership operationalization.

How do leaders translate SDT’s three needs into concrete behaviors? This is precisely what engaging leadership theory addresses.

Engaging leadership

One of the principal responsibilities of leaders is to motivate their followers so that they will perform well. Schaufeli (2021)

Engaged employees invest highly in their job because they enjoy it,
nevertheless they know when to stop (Schaufeli, 2021).

Work engagement

Work engagement refers to “a positive, fulfilling, work related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74)

• Vigor refers to high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the willingness to invest effort in one’s work, and persistence even in the face of difficulties.
• Dedication refers to being strongly involved in one’s work, and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge.
• Absorption refers to being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties with detaching oneself from work.

Work engagement differs from work addiction. Workaholics are driven by an irresistible inner need to work, and when they don’t, they feel useless, nervous, uneasy, restless and guilty.

Taris et al. (2014) argue that engaged employees have a positive (approach) motivation and workaholics a negative (avoidance) motivation. The former are attracted by work because it is fun, whereas the latter are driven to work in an attempt to avoid the negative thoughts and feelings that are associated with not working.

Effects of work engagement

Research shows that work engagement is good for employees as well as for the organizations they work for (see e.g., W. B. Schaufeli, 2013).

• Engaged employees suffer less from all kinds of stress complaints (e.g., depression).
• They run a lower risk of cardiovascular disease and, hence, they show lower sickness absenteeism.
• Engaged employees also feel strongly committed to their organization and therefore show lower turnover intentions.
• They often show a growth mindset (e.g., like to learn and develop themselves, take personal initiative, and are innovative).
• Engaged employees perform better (e.g., make fewer mistakes).

Engaging leadership

Engaging leadership is defined as leadership behavior that facilitates, strengthens, connects and inspires employees in order to increase their work engagement (Schaufeli, 2021, p. 4)

• Facilitating team-members satisfies the need for autonomy by giving them the feeling that they are psychologically free to make their own decisions.
• Strengthening team-members satisfies the need for competence, e.g., by delegating tasks and responsibilities, giving them challenging jobs and stimulating their talents.
• Connecting team-members satisfies the need for relatedness, e.g., by encouraging collaboration and creating a good team spirit.
• Inspiring team-members satisfies the need for meaning, e.g., by enthusing them about a particular vision, mission, idea or plan and recognising their personal contribution to the overall goal of the team or organisation.

Engaging leadership builds on the principles of Self-determination Theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2008), which focuses on three core psychological needs that drive human motivation: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. When these needs are satisfied, people experience greater intrinsic motivation and well-being.

Effects of engaging leadership

Engaging leadership is expected to lead to the satisfaction of basic psychological needs.

Satisfying basic psychological needs subsequently leads to

• strengthened personal job resources (e.g., autonomy, task variety, role clarity, social support),
• an increased effect of HR policies (e.g., regarding training and education) on well-being,
• an increase in work engagement of employees,
• decrease of boredom, and
• increase in individual performance and team performance.

Disengaging leadership

According to Schaufeli (2021), engaging leadership can be contrasted with its opposite disengaging leadership.

Disengaging leadership is characterized by:

coercive behavior, eroding behavior, isolating behavior, and demotivating behavior.

• Coercive behavior, which refers to authoritarian behaviour that restricts and controls employees.
• Eroding behavior that aims to hinder staff members’ professional development and diminish their sense of competence
• Isolating behavior that disconnects staff from the rest of the team and pits them against each other
• Demotivating behavior that aims to create the impression that employees’ work is meaningless and that their work does not contribute to anything important.

People that exhibit these behaviors thwart the basic needs for autonomy, competence, relatedness, and meaning.

Discussion

The digital x disengaging leadership

• How might “the digital” promote disengaging leadership, albeit unnoticed?
• How can leaders prevent those they lead from disengaging?

Steer the conversation toward examples such as surveillance software that thwarts autonomy, algorithmic task assignment that erodes competence, and remote work isolation that undermines relatedness. Ask students to connect these to the four disengaging behaviors (coercive, eroding, isolating, demotivating) and propose counter-strategies using the engaging leadership framework.

Conclusion

Leaders, to be effective, engage in behaviors that complement subordinate’s environments and abilities in a manner that compensates for deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction and individual and work unit performance. House (1996, p. 348)

Latticework update

New models added to your latticework:

• Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation continuum
• Path-goal contingency thinking
• Feedback loops: engagement → performance → engagement

Q&A

Homework

Read Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998) and answer following questions:

• What is social capital?
• What advantages does social capital bring?
• How does social capital relate to leadership?

This reading prepares you for Unit 7 on stakeholder management and coalition building, where social capital theory becomes the theoretical backbone for understanding how leaders build and leverage networks.

Literature

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 182.

House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323–352.

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.

Schaufeli, W. (2021). Engaging leadership: How to promote work engagement? Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 754556.

Schaufeli, W. B. (2013). What is engagement? In Employee engagement in theory and practice (pp. 29–49). Routledge.

Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. (2002). The measurement of engagement and bournot and: A confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.

Taris, T., Beek, I. van, & Schaufeli, W. (2014). The beauty versus the beast: On the motives of engaged and workaholic employees. In Heavy work investment (pp. 159–177). Routledge.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.

Winston, B. E., & Patterson, K. (2006). An integrative definition of leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(2), 6–66.